recycling: is sustainable future

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents program
Weight: 0.65
, service
Weight: 0.60
, thing
Weight: 0.60
, project
Weight: 0.60
Siblings landfill
Weight: 0.35
, trash
Weight: 0.34
, garbage
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
is sustainable future 1.00
is sustainable 0.94
be necessary for sustainable development 0.91

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: 0.32
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(landfill, is sustainable)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.56
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(landfill, is sustainable) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(landfill, is sustainable)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(recycling, is sustainable future)

Similarity expansion

0.73
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(recycling, is sustainable)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Salient(recycling, be necessary for sustainable development)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(recycling, is sustainable)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(recycling, be necessary for sustainable development)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Plausible(recycling, be necessary for sustainable development)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.73
Typical(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Typical(recycling, is sustainable)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.91
Evidence: 0.80
Remarkable(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Remarkable(recycling, be necessary for sustainable development)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Plausible(recycling, is sustainable)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(recycling, is sustainable future)

Typical implies Plausible

0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
Plausible(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(recycling, is sustainable future)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Remarkable(recycling, is sustainable future) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(landfill, is sustainable)