frog: be good for garden

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents reptile
Weight: 0.78
, creature
Weight: 0.72
, tree frog
Weight: 0.65
, amphibian
Weight: 0.64
Siblings lizard
Weight: 0.40
, turtle
Weight: 0.39
, toad
Weight: 0.39
, saltwater crocodile
Weight: 0.38
, otter
Weight: 0.38

Related properties

Property Similarity
be good for garden 1.00
live in garden 0.93
live at garden 0.93
live in same garden 0.91

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(toad, be good for garden)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.59
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(toad, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(toad, be good for garden)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(frog, be good for garden)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(frog, live in garden)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(frog, live in garden)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.96
Typical(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(frog, live at garden)
0.75
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(frog, live at garden)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(frog, live in garden)
0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(frog, live at garden)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Remarkable(frog, live in garden)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(frog, live at garden)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.94
Salient(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(frog, be good for garden)

Typical implies Plausible

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Plausible(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(frog, be good for garden)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(frog, be good for garden) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(toad, be good for garden)