management: has state company

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.64
, solution
Weight: 0.62
, variable
Weight: 0.62
, business activity
Weight: 0.62
Siblings storage
Weight: 0.59
, neo
Weight: 0.38
, banking industry
Weight: 0.34
, operating system
Weight: 0.33
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state company 1.00
be important in company 0.88
be concerned about company 's wacc 0.79
has state jobs 0.77
has state society 0.77
be used in industry 0.75
be made in industry 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

0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(solution, be made in industry)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(management, has state company)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(solution, be used in industry)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(management, has state company)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(solution, be used in industry)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(solution, be made in industry)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(solution, be made in industry)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(solution, be used in industry)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(solution, be made in industry)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(management, has state company)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.51
Plausible(solution, be used in industry)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(management, has state company)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(management, has state company)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(management, be important in company)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(management, be important in company)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(management, be important in company)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(management, be important in company)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(management, be concerned about company 's wacc)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(management, be concerned about company 's wacc)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(management, be concerned about company 's wacc)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(management, be concerned about company 's wacc)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(management, has state company)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(management, has state company)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(solution, be used in industry)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(solution, be made in industry)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(solution, be used in industry)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(management, has state company)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(solution, be made in industry)