burning: has state problem

Related concepts

Parents	method Weight: 0.60 , activity Weight: 0.59 , practice Weight: 0.58 , accident Weight: 0.57 , discomfort Weight: 0.57
Siblings	explosion Weight: 0.32 , combustion Weight: 0.32 , campfire Weight: 0.32 , business activity Weight: 0.32 , sexual activity Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has state problem	1.00
create problem today	0.84
is issue	0.78
has state pain	0.77
put person at risk for health problems	0.77
be problem in europe	0.77
put someone at risk of health problems	0.76
be problem for macroevolution	0.75

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.42

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.79

Plausible(discomfort, has state pain) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(burning, has state problem)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.58

Plausible(activity, put person at risk for health problems) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(burning, has state problem)

0.25

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(activity, put someone at risk of health problems) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(burning, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Plausible(activity, put person at risk for health problems)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Plausible(discomfort, has state pain)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.25

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Remarkable(discomfort, has state pain)

0.23

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Remarkable(activity, put person at risk for health problems)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Remarkable(explosion, be problem for macroevolution)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Remarkable(sexual activity, put person at risk for health problems)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(sexual activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.79

Plausible(discomfort, has state pain) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Plausible(burning, has state problem)

0.29

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.58

Plausible(activity, put person at risk for health problems) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Plausible(burning, has state problem)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(activity, put someone at risk of health problems) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Plausible(burning, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

Remarkable(sexual activity, put someone at risk of health problems) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Plausible(sexual activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

Remarkable(sexual activity, put person at risk for health problems) ⋁

Evidence: 0.43

¬ Plausible(sexual activity, put person at risk for health problems)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

Remarkable(explosion, be problem for macroevolution) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Plausible(explosion, be problem for macroevolution)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Salient(burning, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.89

Salient(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Salient(burning, create problem today)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(burning, is issue)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.89

Salient(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Salient(burning, is issue)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Typical(burning, create problem today)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Plausible(burning, is issue)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Plausible(burning, create problem today)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.89

Salient(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Salient(burning, be problem in europe)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Remarkable(burning, create problem today)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(burning, be problem in europe)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Plausible(burning, be problem in europe)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Remarkable(burning, be problem in europe)

0.46

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.65

Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(burning, is issue)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.89

Salient(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.82

Plausible(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Typical(burning, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Typical(activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

0.25

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(activity, put person at risk for health problems)

0.18

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(discomfort, has state pain)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Typical(sexual activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.75

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(explosion, be problem for macroevolution)

0.06

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Remarkable(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.60

¬ Typical(sexual activity, put person at risk for health problems)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.36

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Typical(activity, put someone at risk of health problems)

0.34

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(activity, put person at risk for health problems)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.85

Typical(burning, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(discomfort, has state pain)