biodiversity: has quality better

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents issue
Weight: 0.59
, resource
Weight: 0.58
, concept
Weight: 0.57
, carbon
Weight: 0.56
, topic
Weight: 0.56
Siblings ecology
Weight: 0.34
, desertification
Weight: 0.34
, conservation
Weight: 0.34
, carbon tetrachloride
Weight: 0.33
, coral reef
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality better 1.00
has quality good 0.94
has quality worth 0.83
be better than less 0.81
be improved 0.78
be good for environment 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(conservation, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(biodiversity, has quality better)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(biodiversity, be better than less)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, be improved)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, be better than less)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(biodiversity, be improved)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, be improved)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(biodiversity, be better than less)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(biodiversity, be good for environment)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Typical(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(biodiversity, be improved)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, be better than less)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, be good for environment)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, be good for environment)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(biodiversity, be good for environment)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Salient(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality better)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good)