oligopoly: be good for consumers

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents industry
Weight: 0.52
, competition
Weight: 0.49
, thing
Weight: 0.33
, firm
Weight: 0.28
, monopoly
Weight: 0.24
Siblings banking industry
Weight: 0.33
, automobile industry
Weight: 0.33
, internet service provider
Weight: 0.30
, petroleum
Weight: 0.29

Related properties

Property Similarity
be good for consumers 1.00
be bad for consumers 0.98
be dangerous to consumers 0.93
CAN can dangerous to consumers 0.87

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

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(monopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(competition, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(competition, be bad for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(competition, be good for consumers)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(competition, be bad for consumers)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(monopoly, be good for consumers)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.47
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(monopoly, be good for consumers)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(monopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(competition, be bad for consumers)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(competition, be good for consumers)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(monopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(competition, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.65
Plausible(competition, be bad for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(monopoly, be bad for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(oligopoly, be good for consumers)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be dangerous to consumers)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(oligopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(oligopoly, CAN can dangerous to consumers)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(oligopoly, be dangerous to consumers)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, be dangerous to consumers)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be dangerous to consumers)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(oligopoly, CAN can dangerous to consumers)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(oligopoly, CAN can dangerous to consumers)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, CAN can dangerous to consumers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(monopoly, be good for consumers)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(competition, be good for consumers)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(competition, be bad for consumers)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(monopoly, be bad for consumers)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(monopoly, be good for consumers)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(competition, be good for consumers)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.55
Typical(oligopoly, be good for consumers) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(competition, be bad for consumers)