decline: be in population

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents factor
Weight: 0.61
, problem
Weight: 0.60
, issue
Weight: 0.57
, book
Weight: 0.52
Siblings drop
Weight: 0.36
, decrease
Weight: 0.36
, rise
Weight: 0.34
, erosion
Weight: 0.34
, contraction
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
be in population 1.00
be bad in population 0.95
be in animal population 0.90

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(decrease, be bad in population)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
Remarkable(decrease, be bad in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(decrease, be bad in population)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(decline, be in population)

Similarity expansion

0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(decline, be bad in population)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(decline, be in animal population)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.03
Typical(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(decline, be in animal population)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(decline, be in animal population)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Salient(decline, be in animal population)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(decline, be bad in population)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(decline, be bad in population)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.03
Typical(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Typical(decline, be bad in population)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(decline, be in population)

Typical implies Plausible

0.47
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(decline, be in population)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.95
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(decline, be in population) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(decrease, be bad in population)