engineering: was used create

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
was used create 1.00
be used 0.82
is when used 0.77
was invented 0.76

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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(science, was invented)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(engineering, was used create)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(science, was invented)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.04
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.08
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(science, was invented)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.07
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(design, be used)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(science, was invented)
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(engineering, was used create)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(design, be used)
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Plausible(design, be used)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(engineering, was used create)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(engineering, be used)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(engineering, be used)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(engineering, is when used)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was invented)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(engineering, is when used)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(engineering, be used)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Salient(engineering, be used)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(engineering, is when used)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Salient(engineering, is when used)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(engineering, was invented)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(engineering, was invented)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(engineering, was invented)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
Salient(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was used create)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.25
Plausible(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Typical(engineering, was used create)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.17
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(science, was invented)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.01
¬ Typical(design, be used)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.05
Typical(engineering, was used create)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Typical(science, was invented)