competitiveness: has quality good

Related concepts

Parents	factor Weight: 0.64 , trait Weight: 0.62 , issue Weight: 0.59 , thing Weight: 0.58 , theme Weight: 0.50
Siblings	consistency Weight: 0.34 , creativity Weight: 0.33 , integrity Weight: 0.33 , mobility Weight: 0.33 , friendliness Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has quality good	1.00
has quality bad	0.96
has quality worth	0.85
has quality definition	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.01

¬ Remarkable(creativity, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(mobility, has quality good)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.16
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(consistency, has quality good)

0.02

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(creativity, has quality good)

0.01

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.10
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Remarkable(integrity, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

Remarkable(integrity, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Plausible(integrity, has quality good)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

Remarkable(creativity, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Plausible(creativity, has quality good)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

Remarkable(consistency, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Plausible(consistency, has quality good)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.01

Remarkable(creativity, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.00

¬ Plausible(creativity, has quality bad)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

Remarkable(mobility, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.69

¬ Plausible(mobility, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.80

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.27

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality bad)

0.77

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.72

Salient(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality bad)

0.73

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Plausible(competitiveness, has quality bad)

0.69

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

Evidence: 0.29

Typical(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality worth)

0.66

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality worth)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.29

Typical(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality definition)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.29

Typical(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality bad)

0.62

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

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.27

¬ Plausible(competitiveness, has quality worth)

0.61

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

Evidence: 0.72

Salient(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality worth)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.91

Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.96

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality definition)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.27

¬ Plausible(competitiveness, has quality definition)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.72

Salient(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Salient(competitiveness, has quality definition)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.72

Salient(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.46

Plausible(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Typical(competitiveness, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

¬ Typical(integrity, has quality good)

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.11

¬ Typical(creativity, has quality good)

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.13

¬ Typical(creativity, has quality bad)

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Typical(consistency, has quality good)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.91

¬ Remarkable(competitiveness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Typical(mobility, has quality good)