design: helpful for companies

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents cost
Weight: 0.64
, industry
Weight: 0.63
, approach
Weight: 0.63
, layout
Weight: 0.62
Siblings architect
Weight: 0.71
, design pattern
Weight: 0.69
, prototype
Weight: 0.63
, chevron
Weight: 0.62
, logo
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
helpful for companies 1.00
be hard for companies 0.89
be helpful 0.85
determine firms value 0.81
be important to company 0.80
be important for business 0.80
is useful 0.79
be such problem for manufacturers 0.78
be important in business 0.78

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

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(industry, be helpful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(design, helpful for companies)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(approach, is useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(design, helpful for companies)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(cost, determine firms value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(design, helpful for companies)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cost, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(design, helpful for companies)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(industry, be helpful)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(cost, determine firms value)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cost, be important in business)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(approach, is useful)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(cost, be important in business)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(cost, determine firms value)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(industry, be helpful)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(approach, is useful)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(logo, be important for business)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(logo, be important to company)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(prototype, is useful)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(design pattern, is useful)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.69
Plausible(industry, be helpful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(design, helpful for companies)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(cost, determine firms value) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(design, helpful for companies)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(approach, is useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(design, helpful for companies)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(cost, be important in business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(design, helpful for companies)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(design pattern, is useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(design pattern, is useful)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
Remarkable(prototype, is useful) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(prototype, is useful)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(logo, be important to company) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(logo, be important to company)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(logo, be important for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(logo, be important for business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(design, helpful for companies)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(design, be hard for companies)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Salient(design, be hard for companies)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(design, be such problem for manufacturers)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(design, is useful)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(design, is useful)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(design, be important in business)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Salient(design, be such problem for manufacturers)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(design, is useful)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(design, be hard for companies)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(design, be important in business)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(design, is useful)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(design, be hard for companies)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(design, be such problem for manufacturers)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(design, be important in business)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(design, be important in business)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(design, be such problem for manufacturers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(design, helpful for companies)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(industry, be helpful)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cost, determine firms value)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(approach, is useful)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cost, be important in business)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Typical(design pattern, is useful)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(prototype, is useful)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(logo, be important to company)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(logo, be important for business)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(industry, be helpful)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(cost, determine firms value)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(approach, is useful)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(design, helpful for companies) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(cost, be important in business)