licence: has quality cost

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents service
Weight: 0.53
, matter
Weight: 0.52
, thing
Weight: 0.52
, penalty
Weight: 0.52
, term
Weight: 0.48
Siblings internet service provider
Weight: 0.28
, dark matter
Weight: 0.28

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality cost 1.00
has quality good 0.82
has quality bad 0.81

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

0.54
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(licence, has quality cost)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(penalty, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(licence, has quality cost)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(penalty, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(penalty, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(licence, has quality cost)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Plausible(penalty, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(licence, has quality cost)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(licence, has quality cost)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality bad)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Salient(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(licence, has quality bad)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(licence, has quality bad)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.58
Salient(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(licence, has quality good)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(licence, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(licence, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(licence, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Salient(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality cost)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.31
Plausible(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(licence, has quality cost)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(penalty, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(penalty, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.09
Typical(licence, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)