build: is poor quality

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents event
Weight: 0.56
, organization
Weight: 0.54
, concept
Weight: 0.53
, part
Weight: 0.52
Siblings development
Weight: 0.31
, foundation
Weight: 0.31
, leverage
Weight: 0.30
, use
Weight: 0.30
, turn
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
is poor quality 1.00
has quality bad 0.88
is quality 0.86
be quality 0.85
has quality better 0.84

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(leverage, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(foundation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(leverage, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(leverage, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(foundation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(foundation, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(build, is poor quality)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(build, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Remarkable(build, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Salient(build, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(build, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(build, be quality)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(build, is quality)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.60
Typical(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(build, has quality better)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(build, be quality)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(build, is quality)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(build, has quality better)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(build, has quality better)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(build, is quality)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(build, be quality)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(build, be quality)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(build, is quality)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(build, has quality better)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(build, is poor quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(build, is poor quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(leverage, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(build, is poor quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(foundation, has quality bad)