erosion: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents problem
Weight: 0.67
, process
Weight: 0.60
, concern
Weight: 0.59
, force
Weight: 0.59
, damage
Weight: 0.58
Siblings macular degeneration
Weight: 0.34
, decline
Weight: 0.34
, tooth decay
Weight: 0.34
, desertification
Weight: 0.34
, fragmentation
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80
be bad for earth 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(desertification, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Remarkable(fragmentation, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(decline, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(tooth decay, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Remarkable(fragmentation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.60
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
Remarkable(fragmentation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(fragmentation, has quality bad)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
Remarkable(fragmentation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(fragmentation, has quality good)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(desertification, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(desertification, has quality bad)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(tooth decay, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(tooth decay, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(decline, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(decline, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(erosion, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Salient(erosion, has quality good)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(erosion, has quality good)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality good)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Typical(erosion, has quality good)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(erosion, be bad for earth)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Salient(erosion, be bad for earth)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.53
Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(erosion, be bad for earth)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Typical(erosion, be bad for earth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(erosion, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(fragmentation, has quality bad)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Typical(fragmentation, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(desertification, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(tooth decay, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(decline, has quality bad)