swallowing: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents thing
Weight: 0.54
, reflex
Weight: 0.52
, activity
Weight: 0.52
, function
Weight: 0.50
, issue
Weight: 0.50
Siblings eating
Weight: 0.32
, chewing gum
Weight: 0.31
, chewing
Weight: 0.31
, vomit
Weight: 0.31
, gum
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
feel bad 0.80

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(eating, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(chewing, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(gum, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(chewing gum, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(vomit, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(chewing gum, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(chewing, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(eating, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(eating, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(eating, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(eating, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(eating, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(chewing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(chewing, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(chewing, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(chewing, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(vomit, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(vomit, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(chewing gum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(chewing gum, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(chewing gum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Plausible(chewing gum, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(gum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(gum, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(swallowing, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(swallowing, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(swallowing, feel bad)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(swallowing, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(swallowing, feel bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, feel bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(swallowing, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.78
Typical(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(swallowing, feel bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(swallowing, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(eating, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(chewing, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(eating, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(vomit, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(chewing, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(chewing gum, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(gum, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(swallowing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(chewing gum, has quality good)