graphics: be important in technical writing

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents graphic
Weight: 0.57
, design
Weight: 0.47
, topic
Weight: 0.44
, department
Weight: 0.39
, tool
Weight: 0.38
Siblings screen
Weight: 0.31
, animation
Weight: 0.31
, interface
Weight: 0.31
, design pattern
Weight: 0.30
, color
Weight: 0.30

Related properties

Property Similarity
be important in technical writing 1.00
be important in writing 0.87

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.48
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(topic, be important in writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(graphics, be important in technical writing)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(topic, be important in writing)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.33
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(topic, be important in writing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.80
Plausible(topic, be important in writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(graphics, be important in technical writing)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(graphics, be important in technical writing)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Salient(graphics, be important in writing)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Plausible(graphics, be important in writing)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(graphics, be important in writing)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Remarkable(graphics, be important in writing)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(graphics, be important in technical writing)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(graphics, be important in technical writing)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(topic, be important in writing)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.88
Typical(graphics, be important in technical writing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(topic, be important in writing)