unemployment: decrease

Related concepts

Parents	income Weight: 0.66 , indicator Weight: 0.66 , spending Weight: 0.64 , benefit Weight: 0.63 , situation Weight: 0.63
Siblings	income tax Weight: 0.35 , poverty Weight: 0.34 , economy Weight: 0.34 , unearned income Weight: 0.33 , crisis Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
decrease	1.00
decrease in nepal	0.86
be in decline	0.84
be reduced	0.79
increase in uk	0.77
rise	0.76
increase in nepal	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

¬ Remarkable(economy, be in decline)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.35

¬ Remarkable(poverty, increase in uk)

0.05

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(poverty, be reduced)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.46

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.53

Plausible(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.33

Remarkable(economy, be in decline) ⋁

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Plausible(economy, be in decline)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.53

Plausible(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

Remarkable(poverty, be reduced) ⋁

Evidence: 0.55

¬ Plausible(poverty, be reduced)

0.42

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.53

Plausible(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.35

Remarkable(poverty, increase in uk) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Plausible(poverty, increase in uk)

Salient implies Plausible

0.20

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.53

Plausible(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Salient(unemployment, decrease)

Similarity expansion

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.53

Plausible(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.03

¬ Plausible(unemployment, rise)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.63

Salient(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.04

¬ Salient(unemployment, rise)

0.64

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.70

Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.06

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, rise)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.70

Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, increase in nepal)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.63

Salient(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.13

¬ Salient(unemployment, increase in nepal)

...

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.63

Salient(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.53

Plausible(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.53

¬ Typical(unemployment, decrease)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.84

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(economy, be in decline)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.71
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.42

¬ Typical(poverty, increase in uk)

0.07

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.70

¬ Remarkable(unemployment, decrease) ⋁

Evidence: 0.54

¬ Typical(poverty, be reduced)