planning: is good idea

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents strategy
Weight: 0.69
, stage
Weight: 0.64
, step
Weight: 0.62
, preparation
Weight: 0.62
Siblings marketing
Weight: 0.34
, plan
Weight: 0.34
, social engineering
Weight: 0.33
, development
Weight: 0.32
, approach
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
is good idea 1.00
is idea 0.96
is concept 0.81
really is important to business 0.78

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

0.04
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(marketing, really is important to business)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(development, is concept)
0.02
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(marketing, is concept)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(marketing, is concept) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Plausible(marketing, is concept)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(development, is concept) ⋁
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Plausible(development, is concept)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
Remarkable(marketing, really is important to business) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Plausible(marketing, really is important to business)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(planning, is good idea)

Similarity expansion

0.78
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(planning, is idea)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(planning, is idea)
0.71
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Salient(planning, is idea)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.81
Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(planning, is idea)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea)

Typical implies Plausible

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.58
Plausible(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(planning, is good idea)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(marketing, is concept)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(development, is concept)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Remarkable(planning, is good idea) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Typical(marketing, really is important to business)