weaving: were invented

Related concepts

Parents	craft Weight: 0.55 , industry Weight: 0.53 , art Weight: 0.53 , activity Weight: 0.50 , process Weight: 0.48
Siblings	spinning Weight: 0.32 , needlework Weight: 0.32 , sewing Weight: 0.32 , quilting Weight: 0.32 , calligraphy Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property	Similarity
were invented	1.00
was invented	0.97

Priors about this statement

Cues

Evidence

Clauses

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.50

Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.77

Plausible(art, was invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(weaving, were invented)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09

Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.94

Plausible(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.77

¬ Plausible(art, was invented)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.28

Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.83

¬ Remarkable(art, was invented)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09

Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

¬ Remarkable(calligraphy, was invented)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.37

Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.77

Plausible(art, was invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

Remarkable(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.94

¬ Plausible(weaving, were invented)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57

Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.94

Plausible(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.56

Remarkable(calligraphy, was invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.86

¬ Plausible(calligraphy, was invented)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26

Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.94

Plausible(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Salient(weaving, were invented)

Similarity expansion

0.81

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.98

Salient(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Salient(weaving, was invented)

0.81

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.98

Typical(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.97

¬ Typical(weaving, was invented)

0.78

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.94

Plausible(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.93

¬ Plausible(weaving, was invented)

0.62

Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.59

Remarkable(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.63

¬ Remarkable(weaving, was invented)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.14

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.98

Salient(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(weaving, were invented)

Typical implies Plausible

0.45

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00

Evidence: 0.94

Plausible(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.98

¬ Typical(weaving, were invented)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.28

Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(art, was invented)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.06

Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.59

¬ Remarkable(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.92

¬ Typical(calligraphy, was invented)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.46

Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.97

Evidence: 0.98

Typical(weaving, were invented) ⋁

Evidence: 0.74

¬ Typical(art, was invented)