vacuum cleaner: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents vacuum
Weight: 0.76
, household appliance
Weight: 0.72
, noise
Weight: 0.66
, machine
Weight: 0.66
Siblings upright
Weight: 0.52
, dishwasher
Weight: 0.35
, water heater
Weight: 0.35
, dryer
Weight: 0.35
, clothes dryer
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
is quality 0.91
be full bad for performance 0.77
be bad for environment 0.77
be good in school 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

0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(machine, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(noise, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(vacuum, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(vacuum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(vacuum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(vacuum, be full bad for performance) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(vacuum, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(noise, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(vacuum, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(vacuum, has quality better)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(machine, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(vacuum, be full bad for performance)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(vacuum, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(vacuum, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(vacuum, has quality better)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(noise, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(vacuum, be full bad for performance)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(machine, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(dryer, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(dryer, be bad for environment)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality better)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(water heater, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(water heater, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(machine, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.56
Plausible(noise, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(vacuum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.47
Plausible(vacuum, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(vacuum, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(vacuum, be full bad for performance) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(dishwasher, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(dryer, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(dryer, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(dishwasher, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(dishwasher, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(dishwasher, has quality better)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(water heater, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(water heater, has quality better)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(water heater, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(water heater, is quality)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(dryer, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(dryer, be bad for environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(vacuum, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(noise, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(vacuum, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(vacuum, has quality better)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(vacuum, be full bad for performance)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(machine, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(dryer, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(dryer, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(dishwasher, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(dishwasher, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(dishwasher, has quality better)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(water heater, has quality better)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(water heater, is quality)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(vacuum, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(noise, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(vacuum, has quality bad)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(machine, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(vacuum, has quality better)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(vacuum cleaner, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(vacuum, be full bad for performance)