tasting: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents event
Weight: 0.57
, method
Weight: 0.53
, gathering
Weight: 0.53
, wine
Weight: 0.48
Siblings white wine
Weight: 0.62
, red wine
Weight: 0.34
, wine cellar
Weight: 0.33
, barbecue
Weight: 0.32
, brunch
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality right 0.90

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(white wine, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(red wine, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(barbecue, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(barbecue, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(barbecue, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(red wine, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(red wine, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(white wine, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(white wine, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(tasting, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(tasting, has quality right)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality right)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(tasting, has quality right)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(tasting, has quality right)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(tasting, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(barbecue, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(white wine, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(tasting, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(red wine, has quality good)