cecum: be larger in herbivores

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents large intestine
Weight: 0.50
, part
Weight: 0.35
, tumor
Weight: 0.29
, colon
Weight: 0.28
, place
Weight: 0.24
Siblings small intestine
Weight: 0.33
, armpit
Weight: 0.27
, mammary gland
Weight: 0.27
, endocrine gland
Weight: 0.26
, lung cancer
Weight: 0.26

Related properties

Property Similarity
be larger in herbivores 1.00
be smaller in carnivores 0.86

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

0.12
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(small intestine, be larger in herbivores)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
Remarkable(small intestine, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Plausible(small intestine, be larger in herbivores)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(cecum, be larger in herbivores)

Similarity expansion

0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.71
Typical(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Typical(cecum, be smaller in carnivores)
0.59
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.46
Remarkable(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.38
¬ Remarkable(cecum, be smaller in carnivores)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Salient(cecum, be smaller in carnivores)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.86
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Plausible(cecum, be smaller in carnivores)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Salient(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(cecum, be larger in herbivores)

Typical implies Plausible

0.35
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
Plausible(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Typical(cecum, be larger in herbivores)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.46
¬ Remarkable(cecum, be larger in herbivores) ⋁
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Typical(small intestine, be larger in herbivores)