landscaping: is hard

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents project
Weight: 0.68
, service
Weight: 0.62
, field
Weight: 0.61
, business
Weight: 0.60
, cost
Weight: 0.60
Siblings construction
Weight: 0.35
, construction site
Weight: 0.35
, roofing
Weight: 0.35
, gardening
Weight: 0.34
, construction worker
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
is hard 1.00

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: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(construction, is hard)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(gardening, is hard)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(roofing, is hard)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(roofing, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(roofing, is hard)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(gardening, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(gardening, is hard)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(construction, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(construction, is hard)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(landscaping, is hard)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(landscaping, is hard)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(gardening, is hard)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(construction, is hard)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(landscaping, is hard) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Typical(roofing, is hard)