extinction: has quality evil

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents catastrophe
Weight: 0.53
, concept
Weight: 0.52
, process
Weight: 0.51
, problem
Weight: 0.49
, topic
Weight: 0.49
Siblings overpopulation
Weight: 0.31
, starvation
Weight: 0.31
, evolution
Weight: 0.31
, global warming
Weight: 0.31
, speciation
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality evil 1.00
has quality bad 0.80
has quality good 0.78

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

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(overpopulation, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(overpopulation, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(speciation, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(starvation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(starvation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(starvation, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
Remarkable(overpopulation, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(overpopulation, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(overpopulation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Plausible(overpopulation, has quality bad)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(speciation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(speciation, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
Remarkable(global warming, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(global warming, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(extinction, has quality evil)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Plausible(extinction, has quality bad)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Plausible(extinction, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Salient(extinction, has quality bad)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Salient(extinction, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality good)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality bad)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(extinction, has quality bad)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.79
Typical(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(extinction, has quality good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.49
Salient(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.59
Plausible(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(extinction, has quality evil)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(overpopulation, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(starvation, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Typical(overpopulation, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(speciation, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(extinction, has quality evil) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(global warming, has quality bad)