negligence: has state rule

Related concepts

Parents	charge Weight: 0.65 , tort Weight: 0.63 , cause Weight: 0.63 , failure Weight: 0.61
Siblings	manslaughter Weight: 0.34 , child neglect Weight: 0.34 , heart failure Weight: 0.33 , ignorance Weight: 0.33 , respiratory failure Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property	Similarity
has state rule	1.00
is law	0.78
be by state	0.78
has state states	0.76
be determined under law	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.33

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.20

Plausible(tort, is law) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(negligence, has state rule)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.06

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.18

Plausible(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Plausible(tort, is law)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.38

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Remarkable(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Remarkable(tort, is law)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.29

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.20

Plausible(tort, is law) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

Remarkable(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Plausible(negligence, has state rule)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.18

Plausible(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Salient(negligence, has state rule)

Similarity expansion

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.14

Remarkable(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Remarkable(negligence, has state states)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.18

Plausible(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Plausible(negligence, has state states)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.16

Salient(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Salient(negligence, has state states)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.14

Remarkable(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.13

¬ Remarkable(negligence, be by state)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.18

Plausible(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Plausible(negligence, be by state)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.16

Salient(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.15

¬ Salient(negligence, be by state)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.44

Typical(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Typical(negligence, has state states)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.44

Typical(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Typical(negligence, be by state)

0.49

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.14

Remarkable(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Remarkable(negligence, be determined under law)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.16

Salient(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Salient(negligence, be determined under law)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.44

Typical(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.82

¬ Typical(negligence, be determined under law)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.18

Plausible(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Plausible(negligence, be determined under law)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.16

Salient(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Remarkable(negligence, has state rule)

Typical implies Plausible

0.31

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.18

Plausible(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(negligence, has state rule)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.40

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Remarkable(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

¬ Typical(tort, is law)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78

Evidence: 0.44

Typical(negligence, has state rule) ⋁

Evidence: 0.02

¬ Typical(tort, is law)