project: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mission
Weight: 0.65
, upgrade
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, web site
Weight: 0.61
Siblings restoration
Weight: 0.69
, expansion
Weight: 0.69
, construction site
Weight: 0.68
, landscaping
Weight: 0.68
, construction worker
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is quality 0.91
has quality worth 0.85
be good for business 0.80

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

0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(web site, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(web site, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(expansion, be good for business)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(expansion, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(web site, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(expansion, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(expansion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(expansion, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(expansion, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(expansion, be good for business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Salient(project, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(project, has quality bad)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Salient(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(expansion, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(expansion, be good for business)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.70
Typical(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(web site, is quality)