conservation: has physical part process

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
has physical part process	1.00
is is process	0.89
be process	0.88
is expensive process	0.84
be difficult process	0.83
is dynamic process	0.83
is is useful process	0.82
has physical part web	0.80
CAN can process	0.78
has physical part zone	0.78

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.45

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.44

Plausible(concept, has physical part web) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Typical(conservation, has physical part process)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.41

Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Typical(conservation, has physical part process)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Plausible(concept, has physical part web)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Remarkable(concept, has physical part web)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Remarkable(strategy, has physical part zone)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Remarkable(recycling, be difficult process)

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

¬ Remarkable(recycling, is is useful process)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.44

Plausible(concept, has physical part web) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Plausible(conservation, has physical part process)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.41

Plausible(strategy, has physical part zone) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Plausible(conservation, has physical part process)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.95

Remarkable(recycling, is is useful process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.43

¬ Plausible(recycling, is is useful process)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

Remarkable(recycling, be difficult process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Plausible(recycling, be difficult process)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.13

¬ Salient(conservation, has physical part process)

Similarity expansion

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Plausible(conservation, has physical part zone)

0.57

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.13

Salient(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Salient(conservation, has physical part zone)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.18

Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part zone)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.25

Typical(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Typical(conservation, is dynamic process)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.25

Typical(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Typical(conservation, has physical part zone)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(conservation, is dynamic process)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.13

Salient(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Salient(conservation, is dynamic process)

0.26

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.18

Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Remarkable(conservation, is dynamic process)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.13

Salient(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Typical(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.09

Plausible(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Typical(conservation, has physical part process)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.38

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(concept, has physical part web)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(strategy, has physical part zone)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Typical(recycling, is is useful process)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Remarkable(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(recycling, be difficult process)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.29

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.25

Typical(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(strategy, has physical part zone)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.25

Typical(conservation, has physical part process) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(concept, has physical part web)