revenue: has quality assets

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents business activity
Weight: 0.67
, value
Weight: 0.66
, sale
Weight: 0.61
, factor
Weight: 0.58
, variable
Weight: 0.57
Siblings capital
Weight: 0.59
, profit
Weight: 0.35
, income
Weight: 0.35
, advertising
Weight: 0.34
, investment
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality assets 1.00
is liabilities 0.78

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

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(profit, is liabilities)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.07
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(investment, has quality assets)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(investment, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(investment, has quality assets)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(profit, is liabilities)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(profit, is liabilities)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(revenue, has quality assets)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
Remarkable(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(revenue, is liabilities)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.11
Typical(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(revenue, is liabilities)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(revenue, is liabilities)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(revenue, is liabilities)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(revenue, has quality assets)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.36
Plausible(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(revenue, has quality assets)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(investment, has quality assets)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(revenue, has quality assets)
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(profit, is liabilities)