opportunity: has quality cost

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents privilege
Weight: 0.65
, example
Weight: 0.64
, tool
Weight: 0.64
, issue
Weight: 0.61
Siblings moment
Weight: 0.65
, challenge
Weight: 0.65
, avenue
Weight: 0.64
, advantage
Weight: 0.64
, happy hour
Weight: 0.62

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality cost 1.00
be important cost 0.91
has quality worth 0.85
has quality good 0.82
law of is cost 0.81
has quality bad 0.81
be cost best forgone alternative 0.79
be cost forgone alternative 0.79
is cost curve 0.77
is expensive 0.77

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality cost)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(issue, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality cost)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality cost)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(privilege, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality cost)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(privilege, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality worth)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(tool, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(issue, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(privilege, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(issue, is expensive)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(tool, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(challenge, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(advantage, has quality worth)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(tool, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(tool, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.94
Plausible(issue, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.02
Plausible(privilege, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(advantage, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(advantage, has quality worth)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(challenge, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(challenge, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(opportunity, has quality cost)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, be important cost)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(opportunity, be important cost)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, be cost best forgone alternative)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Salient(opportunity, be cost best forgone alternative)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(opportunity, be important cost)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(opportunity, be cost best forgone alternative)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, be cost forgone alternative)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Salient(opportunity, be cost forgone alternative)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, law of is cost)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(opportunity, be important cost)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Salient(opportunity, law of is cost)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(opportunity, law of is cost)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(opportunity, be cost forgone alternative)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, is cost curve)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(opportunity, be cost best forgone alternative)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, law of is cost)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(opportunity, is cost curve)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(opportunity, be cost forgone alternative)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(opportunity, is cost curve)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(opportunity, is cost curve)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(opportunity, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(opportunity, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.44
Plausible(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(opportunity, has quality cost)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(privilege, has quality bad)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(issue, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(advantage, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(challenge, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(privilege, has quality bad)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(tool, has quality worth)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(tool, has quality good)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.51
Typical(opportunity, has quality cost) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(issue, is expensive)