telephone: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cellular telephone
Weight: 0.76
, telephone system
Weight: 0.66
, device
Weight: 0.61
, network
Weight: 0.61
, utility
Weight: 0.60
Siblings mobile phone
Weight: 0.38
, cellphone
Weight: 0.35
, computer network
Weight: 0.34
, pager
Weight: 0.33
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality poor 0.88
is quality 0.87
has quality use 0.86
is quality very poor 0.85
improve quality for people 0.81
improve quality for people today 0.81
is audio quality very poor 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(network, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(network, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(network, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(network, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(network, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(network, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(pager, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(cellphone, improve quality for people today)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(cellphone, improve quality for people)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(computer network, is quality)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(telephone, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(network, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(telephone, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(network, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(telephone, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(pager, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(pager, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(computer network, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(computer network, is quality)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality use) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(cellphone, improve quality for people today) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(cellphone, improve quality for people today)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(cellphone, improve quality for people) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(cellphone, improve quality for people)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(telephone, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is quality poor)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(telephone, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(telephone, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(telephone, is quality poor)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is quality poor)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(telephone, is quality poor)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(network, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(network, has quality better)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(computer network, is quality)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality use)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(cellphone, improve quality for people today)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(pager, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(cellphone, improve quality for people)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(network, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.86
Typical(telephone, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(network, has quality better)