waste: is environmental problem

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
is environmental problem	1.00
is global problem	0.81
has state problem	0.80
problem for world	0.79
be considered as pollution	0.79
contribute to pollution	0.77
affect conservation of biodiversity	0.76
be considered as visual pollution	0.76
contribute to pollution of surface water	0.76

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.47

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(issue, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(waste, is environmental problem)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.39

Plausible(action, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(waste, is environmental problem)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.39

¬ Plausible(action, has state problem)

0.04

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.66

¬ Plausible(issue, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.42

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.29

¬ Remarkable(action, has state problem)

0.35

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.76

¬ Remarkable(issue, has state problem)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

¬ Remarkable(trash, has state problem)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

¬ Remarkable(landfill, has state problem)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.66

Plausible(issue, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Plausible(waste, is environmental problem)

0.31

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.39

Plausible(action, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.19

¬ Plausible(waste, is environmental problem)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.38

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.62

Remarkable(landfill, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.67

¬ Plausible(landfill, has state problem)

0.36

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.58

Remarkable(trash, has state problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.72

¬ Plausible(trash, has state problem)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Salient(waste, is environmental problem)

Similarity expansion

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Typical(waste, be considered as pollution)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Plausible(waste, be considered as pollution)

0.61

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.08

¬ Plausible(waste, contribute to pollution of surface water)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.09

¬ Plausible(waste, contribute to pollution)

0.60

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.10

¬ Salient(waste, contribute to pollution of surface water)

0.59

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.14

¬ Remarkable(waste, contribute to pollution of surface water)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Salient(waste, be considered as pollution)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.15

¬ Salient(waste, contribute to pollution)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.16

¬ Remarkable(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

0.58

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Typical(waste, contribute to pollution)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.17

¬ Salient(waste, be considered as visual pollution)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.20

¬ Remarkable(waste, be considered as visual pollution)

0.56

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.18

¬ Salient(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

0.55

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.28

¬ Remarkable(waste, problem for world)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.77

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Remarkable(waste, contribute to pollution)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.24

¬ Typical(waste, contribute to pollution of surface water)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is global problem)

0.54

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.25

¬ Typical(waste, be considered as visual pollution)

0.53

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.22

¬ Plausible(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

0.52

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.31

¬ Salient(waste, has state problem)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.37

¬ Remarkable(waste, be considered as pollution)

0.51

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.38

¬ Remarkable(waste, has state problem)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Salient(waste, problem for world)

0.50

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.34

¬ Plausible(waste, has state problem)

0.47

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.44

¬ Typical(waste, has state problem)

0.44

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.64
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Salient(waste, is global problem)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.48

¬ Typical(waste, affect conservation of biodiversity)

0.43

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.46

¬ Plausible(waste, problem for world)

0.38

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.76

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.52

¬ Plausible(waste, be considered as visual pollution)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.57

¬ Plausible(waste, is global problem)

0.37

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.79

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.65

¬ Typical(waste, problem for world)

0.33

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.81

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.75

¬ Typical(waste, is global problem)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.22

Salient(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.19

Plausible(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.30

¬ Typical(waste, is environmental problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.33

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(action, has state problem)

0.32

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.71

¬ Typical(landfill, has state problem)

0.08

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.32

¬ Remarkable(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Typical(trash, has state problem)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.23

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.61
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Typical(action, has state problem)

0.22

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.80

Evidence: 0.30

Typical(waste, is environmental problem) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Typical(issue, has state problem)