amputation: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents surgical procedure
Weight: 0.69
, complication
Weight: 0.67
, condition
Weight: 0.65
, operation
Weight: 0.60
, method
Weight: 0.59
Siblings plastic surgery
Weight: 0.37
, mastectomy
Weight: 0.37
, hysterectomy
Weight: 0.36
, tonsillectomy
Weight: 0.36
, surgery
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
was good 0.81
is bad people 0.80
has quality question 0.76
is good thing 0.75
has quality jokes 0.75

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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.53
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(amputation, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(complication, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(amputation, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.30
¬ Plausible(complication, has quality question)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.86
¬ Remarkable(complication, has quality question)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.62
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.52
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(amputation, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.30
Plausible(complication, has quality question) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(amputation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(surgery, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(surgery, has quality good)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(surgery, was good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Salient implies Plausible

0.21
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Salient(amputation, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.76
Salient(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.37
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.68
Plausible(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Typical(amputation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.36
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(complication, has quality question)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, is good thing)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.42
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(surgery, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.43
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.62
¬ Remarkable(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(surgery, was good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.72
Typical(amputation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Typical(complication, has quality question)