appraisal: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents real estate
Weight: 0.65
, property
Weight: 0.62
, evaluation
Weight: 0.60
, activity
Weight: 0.57
, cost
Weight: 0.57
Siblings real estate agent
Weight: 0.34
, appraiser
Weight: 0.34
, condo
Weight: 0.32
, business activity
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
affect water quality 0.78
has quality question 0.76
has quality function 0.76
has quality questions 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(property, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(real estate, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(evaluation, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(cost, has quality function) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(property, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(real estate, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(cost, has quality function)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality question)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(property, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(real estate, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(cost, has quality function)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality questions)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(condo, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Plausible(evaluation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(property, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(real estate, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(evaluation, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(cost, has quality function) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(condo, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(condo, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(appraisal, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Salient(appraisal, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(cost, has quality function)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality questions)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(real estate, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(property, has quality bad)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(condo, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(property, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(real estate, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(cost, has quality function)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality questions)