biodiversity: has quality worth

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 worth 1.00
has quality good 0.85
has quality better 0.83
have value 0.80

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

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(conservation, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(biodiversity, has quality worth)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality better)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Salient(biodiversity, has quality better)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality better)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.41
Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality better)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.41
Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.50
Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good)