reptile: be related to amphibians

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents wild animal
Weight: 0.68
, creature
Weight: 0.63
, animal
Weight: 0.62
, thing
Weight: 0.60
, cold blooded animal
Weight: 0.59
Siblings frog
Weight: 0.78
, turtle
Weight: 0.77
, lizard
Weight: 0.76
, alligator
Weight: 0.75
, monitor lizard
Weight: 0.73

Related properties

Property Similarity
be related to amphibians 1.00
is amphibians 0.97
be different from amphibians 0.96
be better than amphibians 0.94
develop from species of amphibians 0.93
be more developed than amphibians 0.92
evolve from amphibians 0.91
be on better land than amphibians 0.91
be more advanced than amphibians 0.90
breathe than amphibians 0.90

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

0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.55
¬ Remarkable(frog, is amphibians)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.55
Remarkable(frog, is amphibians)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(frog, is amphibians)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(reptile, be related to amphibians)

Similarity expansion

0.77
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Salient(reptile, develop from species of amphibians)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.99
¬ Salient(reptile, be better than amphibians)
0.76
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Typical(reptile, develop from species of amphibians)
0.74
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Plausible(reptile, develop from species of amphibians)
0.72
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Remarkable(reptile, be better than amphibians)
0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.93
Evidence: 0.85
Remarkable(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Remarkable(reptile, develop from species of amphibians)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Plausible(reptile, be better than amphibians)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.94
Evidence: 0.77
Typical(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.97
¬ Typical(reptile, be better than amphibians)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.95
Salient(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(reptile, be related to amphibians)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Plausible(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Typical(reptile, be related to amphibians)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.97
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Remarkable(reptile, be related to amphibians)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(frog, is amphibians)