consolidation: has quality bad

Related concepts

Parents	strategy Weight: 0.65 , issue Weight: 0.61 , option Weight: 0.60 , factor Weight: 0.59 , step Weight: 0.58
Siblings	stock option Weight: 0.33 , expansion Weight: 0.33 , reduction Weight: 0.32 , revision Weight: 0.32 , correction Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality bad	1.00
has quality good	0.96
has quality better	0.90
be good for business	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.53

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.74

Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Plausible(option, has quality better)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.22

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(option, has quality better)

0.19

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Remarkable(stock option, has quality bad)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(expansion, be good for business)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Remarkable(stock option, has quality good)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.74

Plausible(option, has quality better) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

Remarkable(stock option, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Plausible(stock option, has quality good)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

Remarkable(stock option, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Plausible(stock option, has quality bad)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(expansion, be good for business) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Plausible(expansion, be good for business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Salient(consolidation, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.71

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.85

Salient(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Salient(consolidation, has quality good)

0.69

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.61

Typical(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.50

¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality good)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.85

Salient(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Typical(option, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(stock option, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(expansion, be good for business)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Typical(stock option, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.61

Typical(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.90

Evidence: 0.61

Typical(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Typical(option, has quality better)