tusk: has quality bad

Related concepts

Parents	song Weight: 0.51 , animal Weight: 0.48 , body part Weight: 0.48 , trophy Weight: 0.44 , ivory Weight: 0.43
Siblings	skull Weight: 0.32 , mastodon Weight: 0.32 , boa constrictor Weight: 0.32 , tree frog Weight: 0.32 , humpback whale Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality bad	1.00
has quality good	0.96
is good now	0.79

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.45

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.50

Plausible(body part, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(tusk, has quality bad)

0.26

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.05

Plausible(trophy, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(tusk, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Plausible(trophy, has quality bad)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.50

¬ Plausible(body part, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.55

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Remarkable(trophy, has quality bad)

0.45

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Remarkable(body part, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Remarkable(mastodon, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.50

Plausible(body part, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Plausible(tusk, has quality bad)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.05

Plausible(trophy, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Plausible(tusk, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(mastodon, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Plausible(mastodon, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Salient(tusk, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.64

Typical(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Typical(tusk, has quality good)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(tusk, has quality good)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.64

Typical(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Typical(tusk, is good now)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.66

Salient(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Salient(tusk, has quality good)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.58

Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality good)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Plausible(tusk, is good now)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.66

Salient(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Salient(tusk, is good now)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.58

Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(tusk, is good now)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.66

Salient(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.59

Plausible(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Typical(tusk, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.26

¬ Typical(trophy, has quality bad)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(body part, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(mastodon, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.64

Typical(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.26

¬ Typical(trophy, has quality bad)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.64

Typical(tusk, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(body part, has quality bad)