application: is expensive

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents agreement
Weight: 0.65
, method
Weight: 0.63
, contact
Weight: 0.62
, element
Weight: 0.62
Siblings search engine
Weight: 0.68
, construction site
Weight: 0.68
, attachment
Weight: 0.67
, authorization
Weight: 0.66
, hearing aid
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
is expensive 1.00
cost money 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

0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(contact, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(application, is expensive)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(contact, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(contact, is expensive)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(contact, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(application, is expensive)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(application, is expensive)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(application, cost money)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(application, cost money)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(application, cost money)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(application, cost money)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(application, is expensive)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(application, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(contact, is expensive)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Typical(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(contact, is expensive)