expansion: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents project
Weight: 0.69
, construction
Weight: 0.64
, factor
Weight: 0.59
, growth
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.58
Siblings construction site
Weight: 0.35
, construction worker
Weight: 0.34
, restoration
Weight: 0.33
, revision
Weight: 0.33
, consolidation
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
is low bad 0.82
be bad for environment 0.80
be good for business 0.76
deal with bad weather 0.76

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(growth, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(construction, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(growth, is low bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(growth, is low bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(construction, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(growth, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(construction, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.52
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Remarkable(growth, is low bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(construction, be bad for environment)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(construction, has quality good)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(growth, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, deal with bad weather)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(growth, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(growth, is low bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(construction, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
Remarkable(construction worker, deal with bad weather) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(construction worker, deal with bad weather)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(expansion, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Salient(expansion, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(expansion, be good for business)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(expansion, be good for business)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(expansion, be good for business)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(expansion, be good for business)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Salient(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(growth, is low bad)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(growth, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(construction, be bad for environment)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(construction worker, deal with bad weather)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(growth, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(growth, is low bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(construction, be bad for environment)