conservation: be important from quality

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.62
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, strategy
Weight: 0.59
, concept
Weight: 0.59
, issue
Weight: 0.58
Siblings biodiversity
Weight: 0.34
, ecology
Weight: 0.34
, wildlife
Weight: 0.34
, recycling
Weight: 0.33
, animal husbandry
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important from quality 1.00
is quality 0.89
has quality good 0.88
be important to gilgamesh 0.85
is important gcse 0.84
is important ks3 0.84
be important from quality of life perspective 0.83
has quality worth 0.81
be important today 0.80
be important for us 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(issue, be important to gilgamesh) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(program, is quality)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(issue, be important to gilgamesh)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(issue, be important to gilgamesh)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(program, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(recycling, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(wildlife, be important for us)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(issue, be important to gilgamesh) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(recycling, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(recycling, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(wildlife, be important for us) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Plausible(wildlife, be important for us)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from quality)

Similarity expansion

0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(conservation, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important today)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(conservation, be important today)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(conservation, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important today)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(conservation, be important today)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Salient(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.60
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.19
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(issue, be important to gilgamesh)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(wildlife, be important for us)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(recycling, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.89
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(conservation, be important from quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(issue, be important to gilgamesh)