national park: have great potential

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents national forest
Weight: 0.77
, area
Weight: 0.70
, land
Weight: 0.69
, park
Weight: 0.69
Siblings grand canyon
Weight: 0.74
, death valley
Weight: 0.69
, beach
Weight: 0.63
, joshua tree
Weight: 0.63

Related properties

Property Similarity
have great potential 1.00
have potential 0.93
have great potential for earthquakes 0.84
have potential for earthquakes 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

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(national park, have great potential)

Similarity expansion

0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(national park, have potential)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(national park, have potential)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(national park, have great potential for earthquakes)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Plausible(national park, have potential)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(national park, have great potential for earthquakes)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(national park, have great potential for earthquakes)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(national park, have potential)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(national park, have great potential for earthquakes)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(national park, have potential for earthquakes)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(national park, have potential for earthquakes)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(national park, have potential for earthquakes)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Typical(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(national park, have potential for earthquakes)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national park, have great potential)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(national park, have great potential) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(national park, have great potential)