whaling: be considered bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents activity
Weight: 0.59
, industry
Weight: 0.58
, issue
Weight: 0.54
, thing
Weight: 0.53
, vessel
Weight: 0.45
Siblings business activity
Weight: 0.32
, harvesting
Weight: 0.32
, hunting
Weight: 0.31
, fishing line
Weight: 0.31
, herring
Weight: 0.31

Related properties

Property Similarity
be considered bad 1.00
has quality bad 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

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Remarkable(harvesting, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(hunting, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(hunting, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Plausible(hunting, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.52
Remarkable(business activity, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Plausible(business activity, has quality bad)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.40
Remarkable(harvesting, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Plausible(harvesting, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.24
¬ Salient(whaling, be considered bad)

Similarity expansion

0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Remarkable(whaling, has quality bad)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.52
Typical(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.78
¬ Typical(whaling, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(whaling, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.24
Salient(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Salient(whaling, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.24
Salient(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.30
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.52
¬ Typical(whaling, be considered bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Typical(business activity, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(harvesting, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(whaling, be considered bad)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(hunting, has quality bad)