marketing: has quality function

Related concepts

Parents	strategy Weight: 0.65 , department Weight: 0.63 , aspect Weight: 0.61 , partner Weight: 0.61 , business Weight: 0.60
Siblings	advertising agency Weight: 0.66 , planning Weight: 0.34 , manager Weight: 0.33 , accounting firm Weight: 0.33 , engineering Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality function	1.00
has quality good	0.78
has quality bad	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.42

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(aspect, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(partner, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(partner, has quality function)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Plausible(aspect, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.23

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.61

¬ Remarkable(aspect, has quality bad)

0.17

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

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)

0.16

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Remarkable(partner, has quality function)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Remarkable(engineering, has quality bad)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Remarkable(planning, has quality good)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

¬ Remarkable(engineering, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(partner, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality function)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.72

Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality function)

0.31

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

Evidence: 0.73

Plausible(aspect, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality function)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.80

Remarkable(engineering, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Plausible(engineering, has quality good)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

Remarkable(planning, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Plausible(planning, has quality good)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

Remarkable(engineering, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Plausible(engineering, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21

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

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Salient(marketing, has quality function)

Similarity expansion

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.82

Salient(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Salient(marketing, has quality good)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality good)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality good)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.65

Typical(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

Salient(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.68

Plausible(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Typical(partner, has quality function)

0.19

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

0.15

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(aspect, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Typical(engineering, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(engineering, has quality good)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Typical(planning, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.65

Typical(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Typical(partner, has quality function)

0.29

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.65

Typical(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.65

Typical(marketing, has quality function) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(aspect, has quality bad)