tupperware: is best

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents product
Weight: 0.61
, item
Weight: 0.61
, thing
Weight: 0.58
, business
Weight: 0.58
, company
Weight: 0.57
Siblings kitchen utensil
Weight: 0.35
, cooking utensil
Weight: 0.34
, cookie jar
Weight: 0.34
, muffin
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
is best 1.00
has quality good 0.76
has quality better 0.76

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: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(muffin, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.59
Remarkable(muffin, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(muffin, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(tupperware, is best)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(tupperware, has quality better)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Typical(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(tupperware, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(tupperware, has quality better)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(tupperware, has quality good)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(tupperware, has quality better)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(tupperware, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(tupperware, has quality better)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(tupperware, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(tupperware, is best)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(tupperware, is best)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(tupperware, is best)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(muffin, has quality good)