manufacturing: has quality costs

Related concepts

Parents	business activity Weight: 0.67 , sector Weight: 0.67 , market Weight: 0.64 , industry Weight: 0.61
Siblings	chemical plant Weight: 0.71 , factory Weight: 0.66 , refining Weight: 0.53 , automobile industry Weight: 0.36 , banking industry Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality costs	1.00
reduce transaction costs	0.82
is quality	0.80
result in high prices	0.79
result in prices	0.78
has quality standard	0.78
result in high prices for consumer	0.78
result in prices for consumer	0.77
has quality good	0.76
has quality bad	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.45

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(market, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.78

Plausible(sector, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(market, result in high prices for consumer) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.39

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(market, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(market, reduce transaction costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.52

Plausible(industry, has quality standard) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Plausible(market, reduce transaction costs)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Plausible(industry, has quality standard)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Plausible(market, has quality bad)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(market, result in high prices for consumer)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Plausible(sector, has quality good)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Plausible(market, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.32

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Remarkable(market, reduce transaction costs)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Remarkable(market, has quality bad)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(sector, has quality good)

0.20

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(market, has quality good)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(market, result in high prices for consumer)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(industry, has quality standard)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Remarkable(factory, has quality bad)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Remarkable(refining, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.51

Plausible(market, reduce transaction costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(market, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(market, result in high prices for consumer) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.78

Plausible(sector, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.70

Plausible(business activity, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(market, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.52

Plausible(industry, has quality standard) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

Remarkable(factory, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Plausible(factory, has quality bad)

0.39

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

Remarkable(refining, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Plausible(refining, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Salient(manufacturing, has quality costs)

Similarity expansion

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.79

Salient(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Salient(manufacturing, is quality)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Typical(manufacturing, is quality)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Plausible(manufacturing, is quality)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, is quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.79

Salient(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.67

Plausible(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)

0.24

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Typical(market, reduce transaction costs)

0.22

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(market, result in high prices for consumer)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(sector, has quality good)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)

0.16

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(market, has quality bad)

0.16

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(market, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(factory, has quality bad)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(refining, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.33

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(industry, has quality standard)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Typical(market, reduce transaction costs)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(market, result in high prices for consumer)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(sector, has quality good)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(market, has quality bad)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Typical(manufacturing, has quality costs) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(market, has quality good)