patent: is expensive

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.60
, development
Weight: 0.59
, material
Weight: 0.59
, device
Weight: 0.58
Siblings invention
Weight: 0.33
, tablet computer
Weight: 0.32
, application
Weight: 0.32
, network device
Weight: 0.32
, algorithm
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
is expensive 1.00
be cheaper than goods 0.77
cost money 0.77
be cheaper than manufactured goods 0.75

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(application, is expensive)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(application, cost money)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(application, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(application, is expensive)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(application, cost money) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(application, cost money)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(patent, is expensive)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Salient(patent, cost money)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(patent, cost money)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(patent, cost money)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(patent, cost money)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.97
Salient(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(patent, is expensive)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(patent, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(application, cost money)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(patent, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(application, is expensive)