waste: affect conservation of biodiversity

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents topic
Weight: 0.61
, action
Weight: 0.59
, resource
Weight: 0.58
, substance
Weight: 0.57
, issue
Weight: 0.57
Siblings compost
Weight: 0.56
, trichloroethylene
Weight: 0.42
, composting
Weight: 0.34
, trash
Weight: 0.33
, landfill
Weight: 0.33

Related properties

Property Similarity
affect conservation of biodiversity 1.00
get in freshwater 0.77
is environmental problem 0.76
be sustainable 0.76
is sustainable 0.75

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

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(compost, be sustainable)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(compost, is sustainable)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(composting, is sustainable)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Remarkable(landfill, is sustainable)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
Remarkable(landfill, is sustainable) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(landfill, is sustainable)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(composting, is sustainable) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(composting, is sustainable)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(compost, be sustainable) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(compost, be sustainable)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
Remarkable(compost, is sustainable) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(compost, is sustainable)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Salient(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

Similarity expansion

0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.06
¬ Plausible(waste, get in freshwater)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Salient(waste, get in freshwater)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Typical(waste, get in freshwater)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, get in freshwater)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Plausible(waste, is environmental problem)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.48
Typical(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Typical(waste, is environmental problem)
0.53
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Salient(waste, is environmental problem)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.32
¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.18
Salient(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.22
Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Typical(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(landfill, is sustainable)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(composting, is sustainable)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(compost, be sustainable)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity) ⋁
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(compost, is sustainable)