yellowstone: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents national park
Weight: 0.58
, national parks
Weight: 0.57
, place
Weight: 0.57
, park
Weight: 0.55
, location
Weight: 0.53
Siblings yellowstone national park
Weight: 0.29
, central park
Weight: 0.29
, other place
Weight: 0.29
, national forest
Weight: 0.28
, grand canyon
Weight: 0.28

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality wrong 0.87
has quality worth 0.82
has quality services 0.77
be good for business 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

0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(park, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(location, has quality wrong)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(location, be good for business)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(location, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(national parks, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(park, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality worth)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(location, has quality wrong)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(location, has quality services)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(location, be good for business)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(park, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(location, has quality wrong)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality worth)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(location, has quality services)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(location, be good for business)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(park, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(location, has quality wrong)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(national parks, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(location, be good for business)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(location, has quality services)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Salient(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.13
Salient(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(park, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(location, has quality wrong)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality worth)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(location, has quality services)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(location, be good for business)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality worth)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(park, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(location, has quality wrong)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(location, has quality services)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(location, be good for business)