composting: is better recycling

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
is better recycling 1.00
is recycling 0.97
be than better landfill 0.84
different to composting 0.82
be recycled 0.81
different to regular composting 0.81
more is beneficial than landfills 0.81
reduce amount of solid waste placed in landfill 0.81
be than landfill 0.80
reduce amount of waste placed in landfill 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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(waste, be recycled)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(waste, be recycled)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(waste, be recycled)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(waste, be recycled)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(waste, be recycled)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Plausible(waste, be recycled)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(composting, is better recycling)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(composting, is recycling)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(composting, is recycling)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(composting, is recycling)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Salient(composting, reduce amount of solid waste placed in landfill)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Plausible(composting, reduce amount of solid waste placed in landfill)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Typical(composting, different to composting)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(composting, reduce amount of solid waste placed in landfill)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Salient(composting, reduce amount of waste placed in landfill)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(composting, reduce amount of waste placed in landfill)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(composting, reduce amount of waste placed in landfill)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Salient(composting, be than better landfill)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Typical(composting, more is beneficial than landfills)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(composting, reduce amount of solid waste placed in landfill)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(composting, be than landfill)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(composting, be than better landfill)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(composting, reduce amount of waste placed in landfill)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(composting, be than better landfill)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(composting, be than landfill)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(composting, be than landfill)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(composting, be than better landfill)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(composting, more is beneficial than landfills)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Salient(composting, more is beneficial than landfills)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(composting, different to composting)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(composting, different to regular composting)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Typical(composting, different to regular composting)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(composting, different to composting)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(composting, different to regular composting)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(composting, is recycling)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(composting, be than landfill)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Plausible(composting, different to regular composting)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(composting, more is beneficial than landfills)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(composting, different to composting)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Salient(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Plausible(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(composting, is better recycling)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(waste, be recycled)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(composting, is better recycling)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Typical(waste, be recycled)