online banking: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents financial institution
Weight: 0.75
, banking
Weight: 0.74
, internet
Weight: 0.72
, bank
Weight: 0.70
Siblings mortgage lender
Weight: 0.38
, bank statement
Weight: 0.36
, reserve bank
Weight: 0.36
, business
Weight: 0.35
, hsbc
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality good 0.94
has quality worth 0.83

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: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(internet, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(bank, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(banking, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(banking, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(banking, has quality better)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(banking, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(banking, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(bank, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(internet, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(internet, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(banking, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(banking, has quality better)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(bank, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(banking, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(hsbc, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality better)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.90
Plausible(internet, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality better)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(bank, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality better)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(banking, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality better)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(banking, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality better)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(hsbc, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(hsbc, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Salient(online banking, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(online banking, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(online banking, has quality worth)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality good)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality worth)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(online banking, has quality worth)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality worth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
Salient(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.73
Plausible(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(online banking, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(banking, has quality worth)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(banking, has quality better)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(banking, has quality good)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(bank, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(internet, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(hsbc, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(banking, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Typical(banking, has quality worth)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(banking, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(bank, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(online banking, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(internet, has quality good)