mechanical pencil: be at architect office

Related concepts

Parents	pencil Weight: 0.74 , item Weight: 0.58 , instrument Weight: 0.54 , tool Weight: 0.54 , product Weight: 0.53
Siblings	fountain pen Weight: 0.62 , pencil sharpener Weight: 0.35 , notepad Weight: 0.33 , electric toothbrush Weight: 0.33 , graphite pencil Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property	Similarity
be at architect office	1.00
be at office	0.77
be at draughtsman office	0.77
be use by engineer	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.14

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.13

Plausible(pencil, be at office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

0.13

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.11

Plausible(tool, be at office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.11

¬ Plausible(tool, be at office)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.13

¬ Plausible(pencil, be at office)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Remarkable(tool, be at office)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Remarkable(pencil, be at office)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Remarkable(pencil sharpener, be at office)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Remarkable(notepad, be at office)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.13

Plausible(pencil, be at office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.40

Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.11

Plausible(tool, be at office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.40

Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

Remarkable(notepad, be at office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Plausible(notepad, be at office)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

Remarkable(pencil sharpener, be at office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Plausible(pencil sharpener, be at office)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Salient(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

Similarity expansion

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.05

¬ Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at draughtsman office)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.84

Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(mechanical pencil, be at draughtsman office)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.84

Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Typical(mechanical pencil, be use by engineer)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.30

Salient(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Salient(mechanical pencil, be at draughtsman office)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.36

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at draughtsman office)

0.49

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

Evidence: 0.30

Salient(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Salient(mechanical pencil, be use by engineer)

0.46

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Plausible(mechanical pencil, be use by engineer)

0.45

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.40

Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be use by engineer)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.30

Salient(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

Typical implies Plausible

0.09

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.04

Plausible(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.31

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Typical(pencil, be at office)

0.25

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Typical(tool, be at office)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Typical(pencil sharpener, be at office)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.40

¬ Remarkable(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(notepad, be at office)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.34

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.84

Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Typical(pencil, be at office)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.84

Typical(mechanical pencil, be at architect office) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Typical(tool, be at office)