fir: is expensive

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents wood
Weight: 0.66
, tree
Weight: 0.65
, evergreen
Weight: 0.58
, plant
Weight: 0.53
, shrub
Weight: 0.52
Siblings douglas fir
Weight: 0.39
, oak tree
Weight: 0.38
, cherry tree
Weight: 0.38
, maple tree
Weight: 0.37
, pine
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
is expensive 1.00
is more expensive 0.94

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(maple tree, is expensive)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(pine, is expensive)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(douglas fir, is expensive)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(douglas fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(douglas fir, is expensive)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(pine, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(pine, is expensive)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(maple tree, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(maple tree, is expensive)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(fir, is expensive)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(fir, is more expensive)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(fir, is more expensive)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(fir, is more expensive)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.66
Typical(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(fir, is more expensive)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(fir, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(douglas fir, is expensive)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(pine, is expensive)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(fir, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Typical(maple tree, is expensive)