telephone: is audio quality very poor

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
is audio quality very poor 1.00
is audio quality poor 0.97
is audio quality 0.93
is quality very poor 0.90
improve audio 0.88
is quality poor 0.86
is quality 0.82
has quality good 0.82
has quality bad 0.80
has quality better 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

0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(device, improve audio) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(network, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(network, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(device, improve audio)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(network, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(device, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(network, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(device, improve audio)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(device, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(network, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(network, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(pager, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(computer network, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(device, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(device, improve audio) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(network, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(network, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(computer network, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(computer network, is quality)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(mobile phone, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(mobile phone, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
Remarkable(pager, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(pager, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(computer network, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(computer network, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor)

Similarity expansion

0.83
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(telephone, is audio quality)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(telephone, is audio quality)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is quality poor)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality good)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(telephone, is quality poor)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(telephone, has quality bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(telephone, is quality poor)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality poor)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(telephone, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(telephone, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(telephone, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(telephone, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is quality very poor)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is quality poor)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(telephone, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(device, improve audio)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(network, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(network, has quality better)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(computer network, is quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(pager, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(computer network, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(mobile phone, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(device, improve audio)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(network, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(device, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.97
Typical(telephone, is audio quality very poor) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(network, has quality better)