unit: be used in process costing

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents area
Weight: 0.63
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, market
Weight: 0.61
, office
Weight: 0.60
Siblings central processing unit
Weight: 0.79
, battalion
Weight: 0.72
, division
Weight: 0.69
, processor
Weight: 0.66
, department
Weight: 0.64

Related properties

Property Similarity
be used in process costing 1.00
be used in process 0.83
is expensive 0.77

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

0.45
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(facility, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(unit, be used in process costing)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(facility, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(facility, is expensive)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(processor, is expensive)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(facility, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
Remarkable(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(unit, be used in process costing)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(processor, is expensive) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(processor, is expensive)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(unit, be used in process costing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Salient(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(unit, be used in process costing)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(unit, be used in process costing)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(facility, is expensive)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(processor, is expensive)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.67
Typical(unit, be used in process costing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(facility, is expensive)