national parks: be under threat

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents park
Weight: 0.70
, campground
Weight: 0.64
, wilderness
Weight: 0.64
, united states
Weight: 0.63
Siblings yellowstone national park
Weight: 0.83
, lake powell
Weight: 0.70
, yellowstone
Weight: 0.57
, national park
Weight: 0.40
, central park
Weight: 0.39

Related properties

Property Similarity
be under threat 1.00
be in danger 0.84

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: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(wilderness, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(national parks, be under threat)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(park, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(national parks, be under threat)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(park, be in danger)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(wilderness, be in danger)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Remarkable(park, be in danger)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(wilderness, be in danger)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, be in danger)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(national park, be in danger)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone national park, be in danger)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(wilderness, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(national parks, be under threat)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(park, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Plausible(national parks, be under threat)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(yellowstone national park, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(yellowstone national park, be in danger)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(national park, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(national park, be in danger)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(yellowstone, be in danger) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, be in danger)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(national parks, be under threat)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Salient(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
Plausible(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(national parks, be under threat)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(park, be in danger)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(wilderness, be in danger)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(yellowstone, be in danger)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(national park, be in danger)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.28
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(yellowstone national park, be in danger)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(park, be in danger)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(national parks, be under threat) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(wilderness, be in danger)