strut: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents part
Weight: 0.52
, framework
Weight: 0.52
, technology
Weight: 0.51
, device
Weight: 0.50
Siblings turn
Weight: 0.30
, strap
Weight: 0.30
, rubber band
Weight: 0.30
, roll
Weight: 0.29
, hood
Weight: 0.29

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality plus 0.80
go bad 0.79

Priors about this statement

Cues

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Joint Necessity Sufficiency Implication Entailment Contradiction Entropy

Evidence

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(framework, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(strut, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(strut, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(technology, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(framework, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.53
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(technology, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(framework, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(rubber band, go bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(framework, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(strut, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.21
Plausible(technology, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(strut, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(rubber band, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(rubber band, go bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(strut, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(strut, go bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(strut, go bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(strut, go bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(strut, has quality plus)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(strut, go bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(strut, has quality plus)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(strut, has quality plus)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality plus)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(strut, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(framework, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(rubber band, go bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(technology, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(strut, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(framework, has quality bad)