species: has state problem

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents endangered species
Weight: 0.76
, creature
Weight: 0.63
, animal
Weight: 0.60
, characteristic
Weight: 0.60
Siblings chinook salmon
Weight: 0.78
, peregrine falcon
Weight: 0.78
, rainbow trout
Weight: 0.75

Related properties

Property Similarity
has state problem 1.00
cause problems 0.81
cause many problems 0.80
is issue 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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.58
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(endangered species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(species, has state problem)
0.22
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(endangered species, is issue)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(species, has state problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Plausible(endangered species, has state problem)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(endangered species, is issue)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Remarkable(endangered species, has state problem)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.27
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Remarkable(endangered species, is issue)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.41
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.82
Plausible(endangered species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(species, has state problem)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.20
Plausible(endangered species, is issue)
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(species, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Salient(species, has state problem)

Similarity expansion

0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Typical(species, is issue)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.20
¬ Plausible(species, is issue)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Salient(species, is issue)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(species, cause many problems)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Remarkable(species, cause many problems)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Plausible(species, cause many problems)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(species, cause many problems)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Remarkable(species, is issue)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Salient(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(species, has state problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(species, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.39
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(endangered species, is issue)
0.18
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.34
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Remarkable(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(endangered species, has state problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Typical(endangered species, is issue)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(species, has state problem)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(endangered species, has state problem)