aging: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents factor
Weight: 0.60
, condition
Weight: 0.58
, issue
Weight: 0.58
, topic
Weight: 0.57
, problem
Weight: 0.56
Siblings macular degeneration
Weight: 0.33
, thyroid problem
Weight: 0.33
, mental health problem
Weight: 0.33
, atherosclerosis
Weight: 0.32
, pelvic inflammatory disease
Weight: 0.32

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality change 0.86
has quality definition 0.76

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

0.13
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
¬ Remarkable(atherosclerosis, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Remarkable(atherosclerosis, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.22
Remarkable(atherosclerosis, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Plausible(atherosclerosis, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
Remarkable(atherosclerosis, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Plausible(atherosclerosis, has quality bad)

Salient implies Plausible

0.26
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Salient(aging, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.45
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.36
Typical(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.60
¬ Typical(aging, has quality change)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.10
Remarkable(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.44
¬ Remarkable(aging, has quality change)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.10
Salient(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Salient(aging, has quality change)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(aging, has quality change)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
Salient(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(aging, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.09
Plausible(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(aging, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(atherosclerosis, has quality good)
0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Remarkable(aging, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.66
¬ Typical(atherosclerosis, has quality bad)