zoo: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents attraction
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, institution
Weight: 0.59
, thing
Weight: 0.59
Siblings african elephant
Weight: 0.53
, meerkat
Weight: 0.43
, aquarium
Weight: 0.35
, museum
Weight: 0.35
, amusement park
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for world 0.82
be good for animails 0.81
be considered bad 0.78
CAN can bad 0.76
is bad news 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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(aquarium, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(aquarium, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(museum, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(aquarium, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(aquarium, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(museum, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(museum, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(aquarium, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(aquarium, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(zoo, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(zoo, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(zoo, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(zoo, be bad for world)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(zoo, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(zoo, be bad for world)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be bad for world)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(zoo, be bad for world)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.82
Typical(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(zoo, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(aquarium, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(museum, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(aquarium, has quality good)