drunk driving: has state problem

Related concepts

Parents	car accident Weight: 0.69 , behavior Weight: 0.68 , accident Weight: 0.68 , crime Weight: 0.68 , felony Weight: 0.66
Siblings	driving Weight: 0.37 , vehicular accident Weight: 0.35 , crash Weight: 0.35 , plane crash Weight: 0.35 , sexual assault Weight: 0.34

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 military	0.83
be problem in communities	0.82

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.44

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(car accident, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(drunk driving, has state problem)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.39

Plausible(crime, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(drunk driving, has state problem)

0.29

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.22

Plausible(crime, is social problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(drunk driving, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Plausible(crime, has state problem)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.45

¬ Plausible(car accident, has state problem)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Plausible(crime, is social problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Remarkable(crime, has state problem)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Remarkable(car accident, has state problem)

0.28

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

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.85

¬ Remarkable(crime, is social problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Remarkable(driving, has state problem)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Remarkable(sexual assault, has state problem)

0.10

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Remarkable(driving, become problem)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(sexual assault, be problem in military)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.36

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.45

Plausible(car accident, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.42
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)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.22

Plausible(crime, is social problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.51

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

Remarkable(sexual assault, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Plausible(sexual assault, has state problem)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

Remarkable(driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Plausible(driving, has state problem)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

Remarkable(sexual assault, be problem in military) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(sexual assault, be problem in military)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

Remarkable(driving, become problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(driving, become problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Salient(drunk driving, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.62

Typical(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Typical(drunk driving, become problem)

0.58

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

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Plausible(drunk driving, become problem)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.56

Salient(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Salient(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.62

Typical(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Typical(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)

0.57

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

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Plausible(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.56

Salient(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Salient(drunk driving, become problem)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.49

Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, is suddenly problem)

0.48

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.49

Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, become problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.56

Salient(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.34

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.54

Plausible(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Typical(drunk driving, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Typical(car accident, has state problem)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Typical(crime, has state problem)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Typical(crime, is social problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.78

¬ Typical(sexual assault, has state problem)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.88

¬ Typical(driving, has state problem)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Typical(sexual assault, be problem in military)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.49

¬ Remarkable(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(driving, become problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.43

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

Typical(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Typical(car accident, has state problem)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.62

Typical(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Typical(crime, has state problem)

0.40

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85

Evidence: 0.62

Typical(drunk driving, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Typical(crime, is social problem)