maintenance: has quality costs

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activity
Weight: 0.65
, service
Weight: 0.62
, variable
Weight: 0.62
, need
Weight: 0.60
Siblings cleaning
Weight: 0.58
, lubrication
Weight: 0.57
, watering
Weight: 0.53
, refill
Weight: 0.40
, edging
Weight: 0.39

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality costs 1.00
has quality cost 0.93
need cost 0.85
cost something 0.81
is quality 0.80
has quality good 0.76
has quality bad 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

0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality costs)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality costs)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality costs)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality costs)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(service, is quality)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(service, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality cost)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(service, has quality good)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(service, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(watering, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(edging, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(edging, has quality cost)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(edging, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(service, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(service, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(variable, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(edging, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(edging, has quality cost)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(cleaning, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(cleaning, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(edging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(edging, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(cleaning, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(cleaning, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(watering, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(watering, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(edging, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(edging, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(maintenance, has quality costs)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(maintenance, has quality cost)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.79
Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality cost)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality cost)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(maintenance, has quality cost)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality costs)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(edging, has quality cost)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(cleaning, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(cleaning, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(watering, has quality bad)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(edging, has quality good)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(edging, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(service, is quality)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(service, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.58
Typical(maintenance, has quality costs) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(variable, has quality bad)