maintenance: is expensive

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
is expensive 1.00
be more expensive for less 0.86
be more expensive for less now 0.85
is damn expensive 0.84
be cheaper in countries 0.78
be cheaper in poor countries 0.77
has quality cost 0.77
need cost 0.76
be based costing better 0.75

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

0.29
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(service, be cheaper in poor countries)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(maintenance, is expensive)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(maintenance, is expensive)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(service, be cheaper in poor countries)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(service, be cheaper in poor countries)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(variable, has quality cost)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, is expensive)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(cleaning, is damn expensive)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(edging, is expensive)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(watering, is expensive)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(edging, has quality cost)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.55
Plausible(service, be cheaper in poor countries)
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(variable, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(watering, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(watering, is expensive)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(edging, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(edging, is expensive)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(cleaning, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(cleaning, is expensive)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.41
Remarkable(cleaning, is damn expensive)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(cleaning, is damn expensive)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(edging, has quality cost)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(edging, has quality cost)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(maintenance, is expensive)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(maintenance, has quality cost)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(maintenance, has quality cost)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(maintenance, has quality cost)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, has quality cost)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(maintenance, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(service, be cheaper in poor countries)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(watering, is expensive)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(edging, has quality cost)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(edging, is expensive)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(cleaning, is expensive)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(cleaning, is damn expensive)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(variable, has quality cost)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
Typical(maintenance, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(service, be cheaper in poor countries)