mobility: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents characteristic
Weight: 0.63
, factor
Weight: 0.63
, challenge
Weight: 0.63
, technology
Weight: 0.61
, benefit
Weight: 0.60
Siblings mobile
Weight: 0.33
, competitiveness
Weight: 0.33
, strength
Weight: 0.33
, elasticity
Weight: 0.33
, comfort
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00
has state need 0.84
is issue 0.78

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

0.13
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.20
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(technology, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(mobility, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Plausible(technology, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.56
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.07
¬ Remarkable(technology, has state problem)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.24
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.07
Plausible(technology, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(mobility, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(mobility, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(mobility, has state need)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Typical(mobility, is issue)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Plausible(mobility, is issue)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(mobility, is issue)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Plausible(mobility, has state need)
...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Salient(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(mobility, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(mobility, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(technology, has state problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Typical(mobility, has state problem) ⋁
Evidence: 0.37
¬ Typical(technology, has state problem)