acquisition: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents development
Weight: 0.69
, share
Weight: 0.64
, agreement
Weight: 0.63
, business activity
Weight: 0.63
Siblings deal
Weight: 0.65
, purchase
Weight: 0.62
, takeover
Weight: 0.50
, merger
Weight: 0.36
, partnership
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
has quality news 0.80
be bad for environment 0.80
has quality price 0.78
is bad deal 0.78
be good for business 0.76
be good in business 0.76
be with bad team composition 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

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(agreement, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(share, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(share, has quality price) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(development, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(development, be bad for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(share, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(agreement, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(share, has quality price)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.49
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(development, be bad for environment)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(agreement, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(share, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(share, has quality price)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(merger, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(takeover, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(deal, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(merger, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(takeover, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(partnership, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(partnership, has quality better)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(deal, is bad deal)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(merger, has quality news)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(partnership, be good for business)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(partnership, be good in business)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(agreement, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(share, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(share, has quality price) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(development, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(deal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(deal, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(takeover, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(takeover, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(partnership, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(partnership, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(takeover, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(takeover, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(merger, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(merger, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(partnership, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(partnership, has quality better)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(merger, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(merger, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(merger, has quality news) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(merger, has quality news)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(partnership, be good in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(partnership, be good in business)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(partnership, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(partnership, be good for business)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(deal, is bad deal) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(deal, is bad deal)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(acquisition, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(acquisition, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(acquisition, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.41
Plausible(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(acquisition, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(share, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(agreement, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(share, has quality price)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(development, be bad for environment)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(merger, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(partnership, has quality better)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(takeover, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(deal, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(partnership, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(takeover, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(merger, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(merger, has quality news)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(partnership, be good in business)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(partnership, be good for business)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(deal, is bad deal)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(share, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(agreement, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(share, has quality price)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(development, be bad for environment)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(acquisition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)