national parks: need protecting

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
need protecting 1.00
help protect 0.84
protect environment 0.84
is protected 0.81
be is protected 0.81
be protected 0.80
be protected by government 0.77
is protected area 0.77

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

0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(park, help protect) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(national parks, need protecting)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(park, be protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(national parks, need protecting)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(park, be is protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(national parks, need protecting)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(park, be is protected)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(park, help protect)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(park, be protected)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Remarkable(park, be protected)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(park, help protect)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(park, be is protected)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone national park, be is protected)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(national park, be is protected)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, is protected)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(yellowstone, is protected area)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.34
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.84
Plausible(park, help protect) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(national parks, need protecting)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(park, be protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(national parks, need protecting)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
Plausible(park, be is protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(national parks, need protecting)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(national park, be is protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Plausible(national park, be is protected)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(yellowstone, is protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, is protected)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(yellowstone national park, be is protected) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(yellowstone national park, be is protected)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
Remarkable(yellowstone, is protected area) ⋁
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Plausible(yellowstone, is protected area)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Salient(national parks, need protecting)

Similarity expansion

0.70
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Typical(national parks, protect environment)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.15
¬ Typical(national parks, is protected)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Plausible(national parks, protect environment)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(national parks, protect environment)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Plausible(national parks, is protected)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(national parks, is protected)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(national parks, be protected)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(national parks, help protect)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(national parks, help protect)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Salient(national parks, be protected)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Typical(national parks, be protected by government)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(national parks, be protected)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(national parks, help protect)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Salient(national parks, be protected by government)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Plausible(national parks, be protected by government)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(national parks, help protect)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be protected)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Remarkable(national parks, protect environment)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Remarkable(national parks, is protected)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Remarkable(national parks, be protected by government)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Salient(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(national parks, need protecting)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(park, be is protected)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(park, be protected)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(park, help protect)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(yellowstone, is protected area)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Typical(national park, be is protected)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(yellowstone, is protected)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(yellowstone national park, be is protected)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(park, be is protected)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(park, help protect)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.81
Typical(national parks, need protecting) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(park, be protected)