conservation: has quality good

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
has quality good 1.00
is quality 0.91
be important from quality 0.88
has quality worth 0.85
be good for environment 0.80
has quality resources 0.79
has quality resource 0.79
is good thing 0.78
has quality evil 0.78
be bad for 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

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(strategy, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(program, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(strategy, has quality good)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(program, is quality)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, be bad for environment)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(recycling, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be good for environment)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(wildlife, be good for environment)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, be good for environment)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(wildlife, has quality resource)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.19
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(biodiversity, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(strategy, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(conservation, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(program, is quality) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(conservation, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(recycling, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(recycling, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(biodiversity, has quality worth) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(biodiversity, be good for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, be good for environment)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
Remarkable(wildlife, be good for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(wildlife, be good for environment)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
Remarkable(wildlife, has quality resource) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(wildlife, has quality resource)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(biodiversity, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, is good thing)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(recycling, be good for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(recycling, be good for environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
Remarkable(biodiversity, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Plausible(biodiversity, be bad for environment)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(conservation, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(conservation, be important from quality)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Salient(conservation, be important from quality)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality resources)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality resources)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, is good thing)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(conservation, has quality resources)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(conservation, is good thing)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(conservation, has quality resources)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(conservation, be important from quality)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(conservation, is good thing)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(conservation, be important from quality)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Plausible(conservation, is good thing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Typical(conservation, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.40
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(biodiversity, is good thing)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Typical(biodiversity, be bad for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Typical(wildlife, has quality resource)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(biodiversity, be good for environment)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(biodiversity, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(wildlife, be good for environment)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(recycling, be good for environment)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(recycling, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(program, is quality)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.47
Typical(conservation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Typical(strategy, has quality good)