composting: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents method
Weight: 0.62
, way
Weight: 0.61
, process
Weight: 0.60
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, practice
Weight: 0.58
Siblings compost
Weight: 0.35
, waste
Weight: 0.34
, gardening
Weight: 0.34
, fermentation
Weight: 0.33
, organic chemistry
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
is quality 0.91
has quality help 0.88
has quality change 0.86
be good for environment 0.80
be good for business 0.80
be bad for environment 0.77
be better time 0.75
be good for earth 0.75

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(practice, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(practice, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(way, has quality help) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(practice, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(way, be better time) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(practice, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(practice, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(process, is quality)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(way, has quality help)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(practice, be good for business)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Plausible(way, be better time)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(way, be better time)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(practice, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(practice, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(way, has quality help)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(process, is quality)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(practice, be good for business)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Remarkable(waste, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(compost, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(waste, be bad for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(compost, be good for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(gardening, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(organic chemistry, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(compost, be good for earth)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(practice, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(practice, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(process, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(way, has quality help) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(practice, be good for business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.45
Plausible(way, be better time) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(organic chemistry, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(organic chemistry, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(gardening, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(gardening, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
Remarkable(compost, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(compost, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
Remarkable(waste, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(waste, has quality bad)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(waste, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(waste, be bad for environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(compost, be good for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(compost, be good for environment)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(compost, be good for earth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(compost, be good for earth)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(composting, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.80
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Salient(composting, has quality bad)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(composting, has quality bad)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality bad)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(composting, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Salient(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(composting, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(practice, be good for business)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(way, has quality help)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(practice, has quality good)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(way, be better time)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(practice, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(waste, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(waste, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(organic chemistry, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(gardening, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(compost, be good for earth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(compost, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(compost, be good for environment)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(practice, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(practice, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(process, is quality)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(way, has quality help)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Typical(practice, be good for business)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.80
Typical(composting, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(way, be better time)