method: have impact on individuals

Related concepts

Parents	approach Weight: 0.72 , standard Weight: 0.66 , option Weight: 0.65 , tool Weight: 0.61
Siblings	algorithm Weight: 0.69 , extraction Weight: 0.67 , strategy Weight: 0.67 , adhesive tape Weight: 0.66 , spray Weight: 0.65

Related properties

Property	Similarity
have impact on individuals	1.00
have positive impact on individuals	0.95
have impact on individuals with loss	0.94
have positive impact on individuals with loss	0.92
have impact	0.88
have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss	0.86
have impact on individuals with sensory loss	0.86
have positive impact	0.83
be connected effect	0.76
compare dna of two individuals	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.40

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.12

Plausible(tool, compare dna of two individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.23

¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

¬ Plausible(tool, compare dna of two individuals)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Remarkable(tool, compare dna of two individuals)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.02

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.15
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.99

¬ Remarkable(algorithm, be connected effect)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.30

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.12

Plausible(tool, compare dna of two individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.99

Remarkable(algorithm, be connected effect) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Plausible(algorithm, be connected effect)

Salient implies Plausible

0.18

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals)

Similarity expansion

0.75

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.94

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with loss)

0.74

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.95

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals)

0.74

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

¬ Typical(method, have impact)

0.73

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)

0.70

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.69

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.67

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Plausible(method, have impact)

0.65

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact)

0.63

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.86

Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Remarkable(method, have positive impact)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.88

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Salient(method, have impact)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.95

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals)

0.55

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

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.94

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with loss)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Salient(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Salient(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Salient(method, have positive impact)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.95

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.68

¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.94

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with loss)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.83

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.51

¬ Typical(method, have positive impact)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Plausible(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.95

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.73

¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals)

0.30

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.94

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with loss)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.86

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals with sensory loss)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.92

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Typical(method, have positive impact on individuals with loss)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.57

Salient(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.23

¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.38

Plausible(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.23

¬ Typical(method, have impact on individuals)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.25

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(tool, compare dna of two individuals)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Remarkable(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.00

¬ Typical(algorithm, be connected effect)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.25

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.23

Typical(method, have impact on individuals) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(tool, compare dna of two individuals)