working: be bad home

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activity
Weight: 0.55
, state
Weight: 0.51
, student
Weight: 0.51
, factor
Weight: 0.50
Siblings business activity
Weight: 0.32
, talking
Weight: 0.31
, pushing
Weight: 0.31
, playing
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
be bad home 1.00
has quality bad 0.77
hard feel good 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(talking, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(pushing, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(playing, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(playing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(playing, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(talking, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(talking, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(pushing, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(pushing, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(working, be bad home)

Similarity expansion

0.37
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(working, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.29
Typical(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(working, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.29
Typical(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(working, hard feel good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(working, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(working, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(working, hard feel good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.06
Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(working, hard feel good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(working, hard feel good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.06
Salient(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.05
Plausible(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(working, be bad home)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(talking, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(playing, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(working, be bad home) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(pushing, has quality bad)