crime: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents conspiracy
Weight: 0.63
, tragedy
Weight: 0.61
, action
Weight: 0.60
, attack
Weight: 0.58
Siblings arson
Weight: 0.70
, sexual harassment
Weight: 0.69
, cruelty
Weight: 0.68
, pedophilia
Weight: 0.68
, drunk driving
Weight: 0.68

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00
be considered problem 0.88
become problem 0.88
is suddenly problem 0.86
is social problem 0.85
fear of is problem 0.85
fear of is serious problem 0.84
be considered social problem 0.83
be problem in communities 0.82
fear of is social problem 0.82

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

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(action, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(crime, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(action, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(action, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, become problem)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(sexual harassment, has state problem)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(sexual harassment, is social problem)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(action, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(crime, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(sexual harassment, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(sexual harassment, has state problem)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(sexual harassment, is social problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.26
¬ Plausible(sexual harassment, is social problem)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(drunk driving, become problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(drunk driving, become problem)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(drunk driving, is suddenly problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(crime, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.33
Typical(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(crime, is social problem)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(crime, is social problem)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.48
Salient(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Salient(crime, is social problem)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(crime, is social problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
Salient(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Typical(crime, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(action, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(sexual harassment, is social problem)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(sexual harassment, has state problem)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(drunk driving, become problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Typical(drunk driving, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Typical(crime, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Typical(action, has state problem)