national parks: has quality bad

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
has quality bad	1.00
has quality good	0.96
has quality worth	0.82
was bad during 1800s	0.79

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.57

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.81

Plausible(wilderness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.57

Plausible(park, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(wilderness, was bad during 1800s) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Plausible(park, has quality bad)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Plausible(wilderness, was bad during 1800s)

0.03

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.39
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.81

¬ Plausible(wilderness, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.55

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Remarkable(park, has quality bad)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Remarkable(wilderness, has quality good)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.21

¬ Remarkable(wilderness, was bad during 1800s)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.81

Plausible(wilderness, has quality good) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.57

Plausible(park, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)

0.29

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.42

Plausible(wilderness, was bad during 1800s) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.12

¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Salient(national parks, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.53

Typical(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.41

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality worth)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.53

Typical(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)

0.41

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality worth)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.38
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.16

Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)

0.28

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.87

¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality good)

0.25

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.36
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Salient(national parks, has quality worth)

0.18

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.23
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.96

¬ Salient(national parks, has quality good)

0.17

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.24
Similarity weight: 0.82

Evidence: 0.16

Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.90

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality worth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

Salient(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.29

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.25

Plausible(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.45

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(park, has quality bad)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(wilderness, has quality good)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Typical(wilderness, was bad during 1800s)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.30

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.53

Typical(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.79

¬ Typical(park, has quality bad)

0.27

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.96

Evidence: 0.53

Typical(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.89

¬ Typical(wilderness, has quality good)

0.26

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.53

Typical(national parks, has quality bad) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Typical(wilderness, was bad during 1800s)