conservation: be important from quality of life perspective

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 of life perspective 1.00
be important from perspective 0.95
be important from scientific perspective 0.90
be important from ethical perspective 0.90
be important to life 0.85
be important from quality 0.83
be important to life on earth 0.80
be important in current environment 0.78
affect life 0.78
be important to environment 0.77

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

0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(strategy, be important in current environment)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(strategy, be important in current environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.17
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(strategy, be important in current environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, be important to life)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(wildlife, be important to environment)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.18
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be important to environment)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(ecology, affect life)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.48
Plausible(strategy, be important in current environment)
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(ecology, affect life)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(ecology, affect life)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(recycling, be important to environment)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(recycling, be important to environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.64
Remarkable(biodiversity, be important to life)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, be important to life)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(wildlife, be important to environment)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(wildlife, be important to environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)

Similarity expansion

0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important to environment)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(conservation, be important to environment)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from scientific perspective)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from perspective)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from ethical perspective)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important to environment)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Salient(conservation, be important to environment)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from quality)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.37
Plausible(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(strategy, be important in current environment)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(ecology, affect life)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(recycling, be important to environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Typical(wildlife, be important to environment)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(biodiversity, be important to life)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.18
Typical(conservation, be important from quality of life perspective)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(strategy, be important in current environment)