surcharge: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents charge
Weight: 0.66
, tax
Weight: 0.66
, fee
Weight: 0.61
, item
Weight: 0.59
, levy
Weight: 0.55
Siblings income tax
Weight: 0.36
, tuition
Weight: 0.33
, income
Weight: 0.32
, rate
Weight: 0.32
, postage stamp
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality worth 0.82

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(tuition, has quality bad)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(income tax, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(tuition, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(income, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(income tax, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(tuition, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(tuition, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
Remarkable(income tax, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(income tax, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(income tax, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(income tax, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(income, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(income, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
Remarkable(tuition, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(tuition, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Salient(surcharge, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(surcharge, has quality good)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(surcharge, has quality worth)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(surcharge, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(surcharge, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(surcharge, has quality worth)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Salient(surcharge, has quality worth)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.65
Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality worth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Salient(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
Plausible(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(surcharge, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(income tax, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(tuition, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(income tax, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(income, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(surcharge, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(tuition, has quality good)