erosion: has state problem

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 state problem 1.00
be problem for farmers 0.79

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

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(desertification, has state problem)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(tooth decay, has state problem)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(fragmentation, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(fragmentation, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(fragmentation, has state problem)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(desertification, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(desertification, has state problem)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
Remarkable(tooth decay, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(tooth decay, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Salient(erosion, has state problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.61
Salient(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(erosion, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(fragmentation, has state problem)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(desertification, has state problem)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(erosion, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(tooth decay, has state problem)