engineering: is when used

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents college
Weight: 0.65
, department
Weight: 0.64
, industry
Weight: 0.63
, science
Weight: 0.63
, major
Weight: 0.62
Siblings computer science
Weight: 0.36
, design
Weight: 0.35
, biology
Weight: 0.35
, mathematics
Weight: 0.35
, physics
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
is when used 1.00
be used 0.87
was used create 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.12
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(design, be used)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(design, be used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(design, be used)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(engineering, is when used)

Similarity expansion

0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(engineering, be used)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.06
Typical(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(engineering, was used create)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(engineering, be used)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(engineering, be used)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(engineering, was used create)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(engineering, was used create)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.45
Salient(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(engineering, is when used)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.23
Plausible(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(engineering, is when used)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(engineering, is when used) ⋁
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(design, be used)