target: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents goal
Weight: 0.62
, competitor
Weight: 0.62
, option
Weight: 0.62
, factor
Weight: 0.60
Siblings face
Weight: 0.61
, head
Weight: 0.61
, command post
Weight: 0.60
, radar station
Weight: 0.59
, synagogue
Weight: 0.59

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
has quality worth 0.82
has quality loss 0.79
be considered bad 0.78
is down bad 0.77
feel good 0.76
be good for us 0.75

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(goal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(target, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(target, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(goal, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(target, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(goal, be good for us) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(target, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(goal, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(option, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(goal, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(goal, be good for us)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(goal, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(option, has quality better)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(goal, be good for us)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(goal, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(synagogue, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(goal, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(target, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(target, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(goal, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(target, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(goal, be good for us) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(target, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(synagogue, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(synagogue, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(target, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(target, has quality good)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Salient(target, has quality good)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(target, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(target, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(goal, has quality worth)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(goal, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(goal, be good for us)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(synagogue, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(goal, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(goal, has quality worth)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(target, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(goal, be good for us)