national parks: has quality good

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
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality worth 0.85
have strong reputation 0.77
be good for community 0.76
have great potential 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.55
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(wilderness, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(park, be good for community)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(united states, have strong reputation)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(park, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Plausible(wilderness, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(park, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(united states, have strong reputation)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(park, be good for community)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.43
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.29
¬ Remarkable(park, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(wilderness, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(park, be good for community)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(united states, have strong reputation)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone national park, have great potential)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national park, have great potential)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.40
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.81
Plausible(wilderness, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.57
Plausible(park, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(park, be good for community)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(united states, have strong reputation)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.12
Remarkable(yellowstone, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.12
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national park, have great potential)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(national park, have great potential)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.66
Remarkable(yellowstone national park, have great potential)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(yellowstone national park, have great potential)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Salient(national parks, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.81
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Salient(national parks, has quality bad)
0.79
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality bad)
0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality bad)
0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality bad)
0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(national parks, has quality worth)
0.69
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality worth)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(national parks, has quality worth)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.74
Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality worth)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.96
Salient(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.43
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(national parks, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.20
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(park, has quality bad)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(wilderness, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(united states, have strong reputation)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(park, be good for community)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Typical(yellowstone, has quality bad)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.37
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(national park, have great potential)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(yellowstone national park, have great potential)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(wilderness, has quality good)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(park, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(united states, have strong reputation)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.89
Typical(national parks, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(park, be good for community)