wind instrument: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents percussion instrument
Weight: 0.83
, musical instrument
Weight: 0.80
, instrument
Weight: 0.66
, ensemble
Weight: 0.55
, sound
Weight: 0.49
Siblings bassoon
Weight: 0.71
, clarinet
Weight: 0.69
, oboe
Weight: 0.69
, saxophone
Weight: 0.68
, recorder
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality cost 0.82
has quality effect 0.78
has quality questions 0.76
is best 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(musical instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wind instrument, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wind instrument, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(instrument, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(musical instrument, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(instrument, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(musical instrument, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(saxophone, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(recorder, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(saxophone, has quality cost)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(saxophone, is best)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(clarinet, has quality cost)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(musical instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(recorder, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(recorder, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(saxophone, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(saxophone, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(clarinet, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(clarinet, has quality cost)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(saxophone, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(saxophone, has quality cost)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(saxophone, is best)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(saxophone, is best)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(wind instrument, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(wind instrument, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(musical instrument, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(instrument, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(recorder, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(clarinet, has quality cost)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(saxophone, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(saxophone, has quality cost)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(saxophone, is best)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(musical instrument, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(wind instrument, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(instrument, has quality good)