access: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents security system
Weight: 0.61
, location
Weight: 0.59
, consideration
Weight: 0.59
, service
Weight: 0.59
Siblings easement
Weight: 0.59
, key
Weight: 0.57
, egress
Weight: 0.40
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.35
, escort service
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
is quality 0.91
has quality wrong 0.85
has quality worth 0.85
has quality services 0.80
be good for business 0.80
has quality shit 0.79
be bad in bulgaria 0.77

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(location, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(location, has quality services) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(location, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(security system, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(location, has quality wrong)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(location, has quality services)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(location, be good for business)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(location, has quality wrong)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(security system, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(location, be good for business)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(location, has quality services)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(security system, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(security system, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(location, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(location, has quality wrong) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(location, has quality services) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(access, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(access, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(access, has quality better)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(access, has quality better)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(access, has quality better)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(access, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(location, has quality wrong)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(location, has quality services)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(location, be good for business)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(security system, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(security system, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(location, has quality wrong)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(location, has quality services)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(access, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(location, be good for business)