project: need have

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mission
Weight: 0.65
, upgrade
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, web site
Weight: 0.61
Siblings restoration
Weight: 0.69
, expansion
Weight: 0.69
, construction site
Weight: 0.68
, landscaping
Weight: 0.68
, construction worker
Weight: 0.67

Related properties

Property Similarity
need have 1.00
need work 0.90
need work together 0.81
need planning 0.78
be needed for development 0.78
be needed for development of country 0.77
need managed 0.76
is necessary 0.76
seem take longer 0.76

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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(facility, be needed for development)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(project, need have)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(facility, be needed for development of country)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(project, need have)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(mission, is necessary)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(project, need have)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Plausible(mission, is necessary)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.44
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(facility, be needed for development of country)
0.03
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(facility, be needed for development)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.20
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Remarkable(facility, be needed for development of country)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.31
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(facility, be needed for development)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.09
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(mission, is necessary)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.03
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.21
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(expansion, need have)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.10
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, need work)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.09
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.98
¬ Remarkable(restoration, is necessary)
0.01
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.08
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Remarkable(construction worker, need work together)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Plausible(facility, be needed for development)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(project, need have)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(facility, be needed for development of country)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(project, need have)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.38
Plausible(mission, is necessary)
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(project, need have)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(expansion, need have)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Plausible(expansion, need have)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.97
Remarkable(construction worker, need work)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Plausible(construction worker, need work)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.99
Remarkable(construction worker, need work together)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(construction worker, need work together)
0.46
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.98
Remarkable(restoration, is necessary)
Evidence: 0.21
¬ Plausible(restoration, is necessary)

Salient implies Plausible

0.19
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Salient(project, need have)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(project, need planning)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Remarkable(project, seem take longer)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need managed)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.08
¬ Typical(project, need managed)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(project, need planning)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Plausible(project, need managed)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Plausible(project, need planning)
0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Salient(project, need managed)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Salient(project, seem take longer)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Salient(project, need planning)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Plausible(project, seem take longer)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.41
¬ Typical(project, seem take longer)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.42
Salient(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)

Typical implies Plausible

0.46
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.19
Plausible(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.04
¬ Typical(project, need have)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(mission, is necessary)
0.14
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.35
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(facility, be needed for development)
0.13
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(facility, be needed for development of country)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.09
¬ Typical(construction worker, need work)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(construction worker, need work together)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Typical(restoration, is necessary)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Remarkable(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Typical(expansion, need have)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.13
¬ Typical(mission, is necessary)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.33
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(facility, be needed for development)
0.11
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.30
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.04
Typical(project, need have)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(facility, be needed for development of country)