strategy: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.67
, objective
Weight: 0.65
, plan
Weight: 0.65
, policy
Weight: 0.60
Siblings approach
Weight: 0.70
, planning
Weight: 0.69
, framework
Weight: 0.68
, marketing
Weight: 0.65
, consolidation
Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality better 0.94
make great 0.80
has quality function 0.78
has quality evil 0.78
have bad reputation 0.77
really is important to business 0.76
is best 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

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(plan, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(policy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(policy, make great) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(policy, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(plan, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(policy, make great)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(plan, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(policy, has quality good)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Remarkable(policy, make great)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality evil)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(marketing, have bad reputation)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(framework, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(framework, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(planning, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(approach, has quality better)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(marketing, has quality function)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(marketing, really is important to business)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(plan, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(policy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(policy, make great) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(consolidation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
Remarkable(marketing, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(planning, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(planning, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
Remarkable(framework, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(framework, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(consolidation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(approach, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(approach, has quality better)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(framework, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(framework, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(marketing, have bad reputation) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(marketing, have bad reputation)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(marketing, has quality function) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality function)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(marketing, really is important to business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(marketing, really is important to business)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(marketing, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(marketing, has quality evil)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(strategy, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(policy, has quality good)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(plan, has quality good)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(policy, make great)
0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(marketing, have bad reputation)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(consolidation, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(marketing, has quality evil)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(approach, has quality better)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(marketing, really is important to business)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(marketing, has quality function)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(marketing, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(planning, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(framework, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(framework, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(policy, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(plan, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Typical(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(policy, make great)