recycling: be less expensive processing

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.65
, service
Weight: 0.60
, thing
Weight: 0.60
, project
Weight: 0.60
Siblings landfill
Weight: 0.35
, trash
Weight: 0.34
, garbage
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be less expensive processing 1.00
be expensive 0.79
is expensive 0.79
produce less waste 0.76
is cheaper 0.76

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

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 1.00
Plausible(thing, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(project, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(project, is expensive)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Plausible(thing, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(project, is expensive)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(thing, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(landfill, is expensive)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 1.00
Plausible(thing, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(project, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(landfill, is expensive)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(landfill, is expensive)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(recycling, be less expensive processing)

Similarity expansion

0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(recycling, be expensive)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(recycling, produce less waste)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(recycling, be expensive)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(recycling, produce less waste)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(recycling, produce less waste)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(recycling, produce less waste)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(recycling, be expensive)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be expensive)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)

Typical implies Plausible

0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(project, is expensive)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(thing, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(landfill, is expensive)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(project, is expensive)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(recycling, be less expensive processing)
Evidence: 1.00
¬ Typical(thing, is expensive)