television: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cable
Weight: 0.71
, channel
Weight: 0.71
, television show
Weight: 0.69
, broadcast
Weight: 0.68
Siblings television program
Weight: 0.70
, television series
Weight: 0.69
, radio
Weight: 0.68
, cinema
Weight: 0.65
, movie screen
Weight: 0.60

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
is bad quality 0.98
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
is quality 0.87
improve quality 0.81
improve quality of life 0.80
has quality news 0.80
is am bad quality 0.79
go bad 0.79

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(cable, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cable, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(channel, has quality news)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(cable, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(cable, has quality better)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(channel, has quality news)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(cable, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(cable, has quality better)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(channel, has quality news)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(television program, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(cinema, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(radio, is am bad quality)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(radio, has quality news)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(cable, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(television, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(cable, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(television, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(channel, has quality news)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(television, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(radio, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(radio, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(cinema, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(cinema, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(television program, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(television program, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(radio, has quality news)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(radio, has quality news)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(radio, is am bad quality)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(radio, is am bad quality)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(television, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Salient(television, improve quality of life)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Typical(television, improve quality of life)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(television, improve quality of life)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(television, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(television, improve quality of life)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(television, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.37
Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(television, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(cable, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(channel, has quality news)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(cable, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(television program, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(radio, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(cinema, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(radio, has quality news)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(radio, is am bad quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(cable, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(cable, has quality better)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.90
Typical(television, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(channel, has quality news)