wad: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents file
Weight: 0.38
, site
Weight: 0.34
, problem
Weight: 0.33
, term
Weight: 0.32
Siblings computer file
Weight: 0.26
, bad breath
Weight: 0.26
, cough
Weight: 0.26
, launch pad
Weight: 0.26
, blob
Weight: 0.26

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality worth 0.85
has quality definition 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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(cough, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(cough, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cough, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(wad, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(wad, has quality worth)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality worth)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(wad, has quality worth)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(wad, has quality worth)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(wad, has quality definition)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality definition)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(wad, has quality definition)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Typical(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(wad, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(wad, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(wad, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(cough, has quality good)