panama: was logical choice for canal zone

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents latin america
Weight: 0.63
, south america
Weight: 0.62
, central american country
Weight: 0.62
, place
Weight: 0.58
, central america
Weight: 0.58
Siblings mexico city
Weight: 0.35
, north america
Weight: 0.35
, puerto rico
Weight: 0.35
, south africa
Weight: 0.35
, mexico
Weight: 0.34

Related properties

Property Similarity
was logical choice for canal zone 1.00
was logical chioce for canal zone 0.97
was chose as sight for canal 0.85
was chosen for site for canal 0.84
was chosen as site for canal 0.84
was ideal place for construction of canal 0.84
be location of canal 0.82
was picked for canal 0.82
was selected as place for panama canal 0.81
was chosen as site for canal joining 0.80

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

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(panama, was logical chioce for canal zone)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(panama, was logical chioce for canal zone)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Salient(panama, was chose as sight for canal)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(panama, was chose as sight for canal)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(panama, was ideal place for construction of canal)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(panama, was logical chioce for canal zone)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(panama, was picked for canal)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(panama, was logical chioce for canal zone)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(panama, was ideal place for construction of canal)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Salient(panama, was picked for canal)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Remarkable(panama, be location of canal)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Remarkable(panama, was chosen for site for canal)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Salient(panama, be location of canal)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(panama, was chose as sight for canal)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(panama, was chosen as site for canal)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(panama, was chosen as site for canal joining)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Plausible(panama, was ideal place for construction of canal)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(panama, be location of canal)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Plausible(panama, was picked for canal)
0.56
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Salient(panama, was chosen for site for canal)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(panama, was chosen as site for canal)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(panama, was selected as place for panama canal)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(panama, was chose as sight for canal)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(panama, be location of canal)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(panama, was selected as place for panama canal)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Salient(panama, was chosen as site for canal joining)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(panama, was ideal place for construction of canal)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.82
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(panama, was picked for canal)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(panama, was chosen for site for canal)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(panama, was chosen as site for canal)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Plausible(panama, was selected as place for panama canal)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(panama, was chosen as site for canal)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Typical(panama, was chosen for site for canal)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(panama, was selected as place for panama canal)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(panama, was chosen as site for canal joining)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.64
Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Typical(panama, was chosen as site for canal joining)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.75
Salient(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(panama, was logical choice for canal zone)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.66
Plausible(panama, was logical choice for canal zone) ⋁
Evidence: 0.64
¬ Typical(panama, was logical choice for canal zone)