swag: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.61
, word
Weight: 0.55
, prize
Weight: 0.43
, accessory
Weight: 0.43
, gift
Weight: 0.43
Siblings t shirt
Weight: 0.61
, stuff
Weight: 0.33
, booty
Weight: 0.32
, hey
Weight: 0.32
, crap
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality evil 0.78

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

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(gift, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(swag, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(gift, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(gift, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(gift, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(swag, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(swag, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Salient(swag, has quality evil)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(swag, has quality evil)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(swag, has quality evil)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(swag, has quality evil)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Salient(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(swag, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(swag, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gift, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(swag, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(gift, has quality good)