agent: charge vat

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents biological agent
Weight: 0.76
, real estate agent
Weight: 0.65
, source
Weight: 0.64
, contractor
Weight: 0.62
Siblings travel agent
Weight: 0.75
, representative
Weight: 0.67
, beta blocker
Weight: 0.65
, solicitor
Weight: 0.63
, attorney
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
charge vat 1.00

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

0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(contractor, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(agent, charge vat)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(contractor, charge vat)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.53
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(contractor, charge vat)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(solicitor, charge vat)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(contractor, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
Remarkable(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(agent, charge vat)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(solicitor, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(solicitor, charge vat)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(agent, charge vat)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(agent, charge vat)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(agent, charge vat)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(contractor, charge vat)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(solicitor, charge vat)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(agent, charge vat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(contractor, charge vat)