national parks: has size large

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 size large 1.00
is footprint large 0.83
is ecological footprint large 0.77
is big 0.75

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

0.62
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(park, has size large)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(national parks, has size large)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(united states, is ecological footprint large)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(national parks, has size large)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Plausible(park, has size large)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(united states, is ecological footprint large)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(park, has size large)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(united states, is ecological footprint large)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(central park, is big)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.92
Plausible(park, has size large)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(national parks, has size large)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(united states, is ecological footprint large)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(national parks, has size large)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(central park, is big)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(central park, is big)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(national parks, has size large)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.91
Salient(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(national parks, has size large)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(park, has size large)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.41
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(united states, is ecological footprint large)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(central park, is big)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(park, has size large)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(national parks, has size large)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(united states, is ecological footprint large)