newt: questions

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents amphibian
Weight: 0.66
, politician
Weight: 0.61
, animal
Weight: 0.59
, species
Weight: 0.57
, republican
Weight: 0.55
Siblings tree frog
Weight: 0.35
, frog
Weight: 0.35
, salamander
Weight: 0.34
, lizard
Weight: 0.34
, peregrine falcon
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
questions 1.00
has quality questions 0.92

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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Remarkable(tree frog, has quality questions)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Remarkable(salamander, has quality questions)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
Remarkable(salamander, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Plausible(salamander, has quality questions)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
Remarkable(tree frog, has quality questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.58
¬ Plausible(tree frog, has quality questions)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.27
¬ Salient(newt, questions)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.35
¬ Remarkable(newt, has quality questions)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.50
Typical(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(newt, has quality questions)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(newt, has quality questions)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(newt, has quality questions)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.27
Salient(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(newt, questions)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Plausible(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(newt, questions)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(tree frog, has quality questions)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.92
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(newt, questions) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(salamander, has quality questions)