hacking: is necessary

Related concepts

Parents	crime Weight: 0.63 , computer network Weight: 0.57 , activity Weight: 0.57 , thing Weight: 0.55 , breach Weight: 0.53
Siblings	computer virus Weight: 0.35 , hack Weight: 0.33 , stealing Weight: 0.32 , sexual harassment Weight: 0.32 , piracy Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
is necessary	1.00
is needed	0.86
be even possible	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.48

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.27

Plausible(computer network, is needed) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Typical(hacking, is necessary)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.27

¬ Plausible(computer network, is needed)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.05

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.10
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Remarkable(computer network, is needed)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.27

Plausible(computer network, is needed) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

Remarkable(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(hacking, is necessary)

Salient implies Plausible

0.17

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Salient(hacking, is necessary)

Similarity expansion

0.68

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.93

Remarkable(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Remarkable(hacking, is needed)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.93

Remarkable(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.84

¬ Remarkable(hacking, be even possible)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.68

Salient(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Salient(hacking, is needed)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.21

Typical(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Typical(hacking, is needed)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.47

¬ Plausible(hacking, is needed)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.68

Salient(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Salient(hacking, be even possible)

0.46

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.50

¬ Plausible(hacking, be even possible)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.21

Typical(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Typical(hacking, be even possible)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.68

Salient(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Typical(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(hacking, is necessary)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Typical(hacking, is necessary)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.41

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Remarkable(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(computer network, is needed)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.21

Typical(hacking, is necessary) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Typical(computer network, is needed)