catering: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.61
, sector
Weight: 0.59
, service
Weight: 0.56
, department
Weight: 0.56
Siblings escort service
Weight: 0.34
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.33
, postal service
Weight: 0.33
, banking industry
Weight: 0.33
, bar service
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is quality 0.91
has quality standard 0.83
has quality news 0.79
has quality prices 0.78
be bad in bulgaria 0.77
has quality virtue 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

0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(sector, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(sector, has quality news)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(industry, has quality standard)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(industry, has quality virtue)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(sector, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(industry, has quality standard)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(sector, has quality news)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(industry, has quality virtue)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(sector, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(industry, has quality virtue)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(sector, has quality news)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(industry, has quality standard)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(sector, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(industry, has quality standard)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(sector, has quality news)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(industry, has quality virtue)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(catering, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(catering, has quality prices)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality prices)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(sector, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(industry, has quality virtue)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(sector, has quality news)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(sector, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(sector, has quality news)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
Typical(catering, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(industry, has quality virtue)