conservatory: has quality cost

Related concepts

Parents	building Weight: 0.61 , room Weight: 0.61 , addition Weight: 0.60 , window Weight: 0.53 , feature Weight: 0.49
Siblings	greenhouse Weight: 0.34 , concert hall Weight: 0.34 , hall Weight: 0.34 , entrance hall Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality cost	1.00
has quality price	0.87
has quality bad	0.81
is expensive	0.77
has quality definition	0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.49

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

Plausible(window, is expensive) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality cost)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.93

Plausible(room, is expensive) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality cost)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.85

Plausible(room, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality cost)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Plausible(room, has quality bad)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Plausible(room, is expensive)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Plausible(window, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.27

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(room, has quality bad)

0.24

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Remarkable(room, is expensive)

0.23

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Remarkable(window, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Remarkable(greenhouse, is expensive)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Remarkable(hall, is expensive)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.85

Plausible(room, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

Plausible(window, is expensive) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.93

Plausible(room, is expensive) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

Remarkable(hall, is expensive) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Plausible(hall, is expensive)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

Remarkable(greenhouse, is expensive) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Plausible(greenhouse, is expensive)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Salient(conservatory, has quality cost)

Similarity expansion

0.69

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.93

Salient(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Salient(conservatory, has quality price)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.93

Salient(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Salient(conservatory, has quality bad)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality price)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Plausible(conservatory, has quality price)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality bad)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Plausible(conservatory, has quality bad)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.93

Salient(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Salient(conservatory, is expensive)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality bad)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.93

Salient(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Salient(conservatory, has quality definition)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality price)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality definition)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(conservatory, is expensive)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Plausible(conservatory, has quality definition)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, is expensive)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Plausible(conservatory, is expensive)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.93

Salient(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.83

Plausible(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(conservatory, has quality cost)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.14

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Typical(room, has quality bad)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Typical(room, is expensive)

0.11

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.99

¬ Typical(window, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(greenhouse, is expensive)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Typical(hall, is expensive)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Typical(room, has quality bad)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Typical(room, is expensive)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(conservatory, has quality cost) ⋁

Evidence: 0.99

¬ Typical(window, is expensive)