union: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents city
Weight: 0.61
, club
Weight: 0.61
, county
Weight: 0.59
, institution
Weight: 0.59
, party
Weight: 0.59
Siblings labor
Weight: 0.34
, quebec city
Weight: 0.33
, political party
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

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

0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(city, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(union, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(club, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(union, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(club, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(city, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(club, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(city, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(labor, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(city, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(union, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(club, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(union, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(labor, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(labor, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(union, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(union, has quality bad)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality bad)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(union, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(union, has quality bad)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(union, is good thing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(union, is good thing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(union, is good thing)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(union, is good thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(union, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(club, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(city, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(labor, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(club, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(union, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(city, has quality good)