evaluation: has quality question

Related concepts

Parents	consideration Weight: 0.66 , activity Weight: 0.61 , document Weight: 0.61 , discipline Weight: 0.58 , recommendation Weight: 0.57
Siblings	appraisal Weight: 0.60 , observation Weight: 0.33 , documentation Weight: 0.32 , business activity Weight: 0.32 , orientation Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality question	1.00
has quality questions	0.92
has quality good	0.77
has quality bad	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.50

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.79

Plausible(discipline, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(discipline, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(recommendation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(recommendation, has quality bad)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(discipline, has quality bad)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Plausible(discipline, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.24

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(recommendation, has quality bad)

0.15

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(discipline, has quality bad)

0.11

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Remarkable(discipline, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad)

0.05

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

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(observation, has quality good)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Remarkable(appraisal, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.79

Plausible(discipline, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality question)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(discipline, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality question)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(recommendation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality question)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.40

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

Remarkable(orientation, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.23

¬ Plausible(orientation, has quality bad)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

Remarkable(appraisal, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality good)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

Remarkable(observation, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Plausible(observation, has quality good)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

Remarkable(appraisal, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Plausible(appraisal, has quality bad)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.16

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Salient(evaluation, has quality question)

Similarity expansion

0.75

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.96

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality questions)

0.72

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.14

Typical(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality questions)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality good)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality questions)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.66

Salient(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.64

¬ Salient(evaluation, has quality questions)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.66

Salient(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Salient(evaluation, has quality good)

0.29

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Plausible(evaluation, has quality good)

0.14

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.14

Typical(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

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

Evidence: 0.66

Salient(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.37

Plausible(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Typical(evaluation, has quality question)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.11

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(discipline, has quality bad)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(discipline, has quality good)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(recommendation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Typical(orientation, has quality bad)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality bad)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.22
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(appraisal, has quality good)

0.01

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.11
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Typical(observation, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.13

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.14

Typical(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(discipline, has quality bad)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.14

Typical(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(discipline, has quality good)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.14

Typical(evaluation, has quality question) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(recommendation, has quality bad)