dam: is good for

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents project
Weight: 0.64
, barrier
Weight: 0.61
, site
Weight: 0.60
, factor
Weight: 0.60
Siblings bridge
Weight: 0.35
, construction site
Weight: 0.34
, dike
Weight: 0.34
, levee
Weight: 0.33
, creek
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
is good for 1.00
has quality good 0.86
be from from good 0.85
be good for environment 0.84
has quality bad 0.82
is good idea 0.81
is great game 0.80
is best 0.80
be bad for environment 0.80
is very important 0.78

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(barrier, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(barrier, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.26
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(project, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(project, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(barrier, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(site, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Plausible(barrier, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Remarkable(barrier, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(project, has quality good)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(barrier, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(site, has quality bad)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(levee, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(bridge, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(barrier, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(dam, is good for)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.86
Plausible(barrier, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(dam, is good for)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(project, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(dam, is good for)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(site, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(dam, is good for)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.12
Plausible(project, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(dam, is good for)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(bridge, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(bridge, has quality good)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(levee, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(levee, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(dam, is good for)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Salient(dam, be bad for environment)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(dam, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(dam, be good for environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(dam, be bad for environment)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(dam, be bad for environment)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(dam, be bad for environment)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(dam, has quality bad)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(dam, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(dam, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(dam, has quality bad)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(dam, is very important)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(dam, be good for environment)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Salient(dam, be good for environment)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(dam, has quality good)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(dam, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(dam, be good for environment)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(dam, is very important)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(dam, is very important)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(dam, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Remarkable(dam, is very important)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Salient(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(dam, is good for)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(barrier, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(barrier, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(levee, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(bridge, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(project, has quality good)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(project, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(barrier, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(site, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(dam, is good for) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(barrier, has quality bad)