camel: have humps

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mammal
Weight: 0.64
, wild animal
Weight: 0.62
, animal
Weight: 0.58
, thing
Weight: 0.57
Siblings bactrian camel
Weight: 0.36
, mountain goat
Weight: 0.35
, elephant
Weight: 0.35
, donkey
Weight: 0.35
, goat
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
have humps 1.00
have humps for 1.00
humps 1.00
use humps 0.99
need humps 0.99
have two humps 0.98
have big humps 0.98
have humps on back 0.97
have numbers of humps 0.96
survive with humps 0.95

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: 0.98
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(bactrian camel, have two humps)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(bactrian camel, have two humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(bactrian camel, have two humps)

Salient implies Plausible

0.27
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(camel, have humps)

Similarity expansion

0.82
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(camel, have two humps)
0.82
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Plausible(camel, have humps for)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Salient(camel, have two humps)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(camel, have two humps)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(camel, have two humps)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(camel, have humps for)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(camel, have humps for)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(camel, have humps for)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Salient(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(camel, have humps)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Plausible(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(camel, have humps)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.98
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(camel, have humps) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(bactrian camel, have two humps)