zoo: be good for animails

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents attraction
Weight: 0.64
, facility
Weight: 0.63
, institution
Weight: 0.59
, thing
Weight: 0.59
Siblings african elephant
Weight: 0.53
, meerkat
Weight: 0.43
, aquarium
Weight: 0.35
, museum
Weight: 0.35
, amusement park
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
be good for animails 1.00
has quality good 0.85
be bad for world 0.83
be good for education 0.82
be considered bad 0.82
be good for economy 0.81
has quality bad 0.81
do more harm than good 0.79
provide more good than harm 0.78
be bad for children 0.77

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

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.56
¬ Remarkable(aquarium, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(aquarium, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Remarkable(museum, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.75
Remarkable(museum, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(museum, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.70
Remarkable(aquarium, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Plausible(aquarium, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.56
Remarkable(aquarium, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(aquarium, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Salient(zoo, be good for animails)

Similarity expansion

0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(zoo, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Typical(zoo, do more harm than good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(zoo, be bad for world)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Salient(zoo, be bad for world)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(zoo, provide more good than harm)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(zoo, be bad for world)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Typical(zoo, has quality bad)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(zoo, be bad for children)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.83
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be bad for world)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.84
Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(zoo, be bad for children)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(zoo, do more harm than good)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.25
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be bad for children)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Plausible(zoo, provide more good than harm)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.77
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.48
¬ Plausible(zoo, be bad for children)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(zoo, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(zoo, has quality bad)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Salient(zoo, provide more good than harm)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Salient(zoo, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Salient(zoo, do more harm than good)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(zoo, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(zoo, has quality good)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Remarkable(zoo, provide more good than harm)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Remarkable(zoo, do more harm than good)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.67
Salient(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)

Typical implies Plausible

0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.70
Plausible(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(zoo, be good for animails)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Typical(museum, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(aquarium, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(zoo, be good for animails)
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Typical(aquarium, has quality bad)