litter: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents issue
Weight: 0.56
, garbage
Weight: 0.56
, item
Weight: 0.55
, problem
Weight: 0.54
Siblings fishing line
Weight: 0.61
, trash bag
Weight: 0.34
, trash can
Weight: 0.34
, trash
Weight: 0.34
, garbage can
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00
is big problem 0.88
be problem at school 0.87
is environmental problem 0.80
is issue 0.78
be problem in uk 0.77
has state clear 0.76

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(litter, has state problem)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(issue, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(litter, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(issue, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(garbage, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.48
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(garbage, has state problem)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(issue, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Remarkable(trash, has state problem)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Remarkable(fishing line, has state clear)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(trash, is issue)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(garbage, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(litter, has state problem)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(issue, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(litter, has state problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.53
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.58
Remarkable(trash, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(trash, has state problem)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.88
Remarkable(trash, is issue)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Plausible(trash, is issue)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.23
Remarkable(fishing line, has state clear)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(fishing line, has state clear)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(litter, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(litter, be problem at school)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Salient(litter, be problem at school)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.05
¬ Remarkable(litter, be problem at school)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Typical(litter, be problem at school)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(litter, is issue)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(litter, is issue)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Salient(litter, is issue)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(litter, is environmental problem)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(litter, is big problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Plausible(litter, is environmental problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(litter, be problem in uk)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Salient(litter, be problem in uk)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Plausible(litter, be problem in uk)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(litter, is big problem)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(litter, is environmental problem)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(litter, is big problem)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(litter, be problem in uk)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.88
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(litter, is big problem)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(litter, is issue)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(litter, is environmental problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Salient(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Typical(litter, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(garbage, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(trash, is issue)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(trash, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(fishing line, has state clear)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Typical(litter, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(garbage, has state problem)