catering: has quality prices

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 prices 1.00
is quality 0.81
has quality good 0.78
be very high in demand 0.77
has quality bad 0.77
has quality standard 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

0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(sector, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(industry, has quality standard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(industry, has quality standard)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(sector, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(sector, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(industry, has quality standard)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality prices)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality prices)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(sector, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality prices)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(industry, has quality standard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality prices)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(catering, has quality prices)

Similarity expansion

0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(catering, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(catering, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(catering, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(catering, has quality prices)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(sector, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(catering, has quality prices) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(sector, has quality good)