un: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents institution
Weight: 0.60
, body
Weight: 0.57
, force
Weight: 0.55
, organization
Weight: 0.54
, policy
Weight: 0.53
Siblings washington
Weight: 0.31
, american express
Weight: 0.31
, mit
Weight: 0.31
, cambridge
Weight: 0.31
, society
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is good thing 0.75

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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(policy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(un, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(policy, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(policy, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(american express, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(mit, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(cambridge, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(policy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(un, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(cambridge, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(cambridge, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(mit, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(mit, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(american express, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(american express, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(un, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(un, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(un, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(un, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(un, is good thing)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(un, is good thing)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(un, is good thing)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(un, is good thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Salient(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(un, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(policy, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(cambridge, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(mit, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(american express, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(un, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(policy, has quality good)