evil: is big problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents concept
Weight: 0.61
, topic
Weight: 0.60
, theme
Weight: 0.58
, movie
Weight: 0.58
, symbol
Weight: 0.57
Siblings corruption
Weight: 0.64
, masturbation
Weight: 0.63
, segregation
Weight: 0.61
, pedophilia
Weight: 0.60
, inequality
Weight: 0.59

Related properties

Property Similarity
is big problem 1.00
is suddenly big problem 0.94
has state problem 0.88
is suddenly problem 0.87
be problem for believers 0.75

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(corruption, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(inequality, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Remarkable(segregation, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
Remarkable(segregation, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(segregation, has state problem)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
Remarkable(inequality, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(inequality, has state problem)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
Remarkable(corruption, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(corruption, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(evil, is big problem)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(evil, is suddenly big problem)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(evil, is suddenly problem)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(evil, has state problem)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(evil, is suddenly big problem)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(evil, is suddenly big problem)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(evil, is suddenly big problem)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(evil, is suddenly problem)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Salient(evil, is suddenly problem)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Remarkable(evil, is suddenly problem)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(evil, has state problem)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(evil, has state problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(evil, has state problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(evil, be problem for believers)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(evil, be problem for believers)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(evil, be problem for believers)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(evil, be problem for believers)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(evil, is big problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Typical(segregation, has state problem)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Typical(inequality, has state problem)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(evil, is big problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(corruption, has state problem)