esophagus: has quality good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents mucous membrane
Weight: 0.66
, digestive system
Weight: 0.60
, organ
Weight: 0.57
, alimentary canal
Weight: 0.55
, condition
Weight: 0.55
Siblings small intestine
Weight: 0.36
, lung
Weight: 0.35
, irritable bowel syndrome
Weight: 0.35
, rectum
Weight: 0.35
, intestine
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality good 1.00
has quality bad 0.96
has quality worth 0.85
has quality worse 0.84
has quality system 0.84
has quality function 0.78
be good at job 0.77
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

Plausibility inference from child typicality

0.44
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(organ, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
0.43
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digestive system, has quality system)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(digestive system, has quality definition)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
0.16
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.25
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(digestive system, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.09
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(digestive system, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Plausible(organ, has quality worth)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(digestive system, has quality system)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(digestive system, has quality definition)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.50
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.16
¬ Remarkable(digestive system, has quality bad)
0.30
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Remarkable(digestive system, has quality definition)
0.28
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.59
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(digestive system, has quality system)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.56
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.82
¬ Remarkable(organ, has quality worth)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.63
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
¬ Remarkable(intestine, has quality good)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.77
Plausible(organ, has quality worth)
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.75
Plausible(digestive system, has quality system)
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(digestive system, has quality definition)
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
0.27
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.18
Plausible(digestive system, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.58
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.69
Remarkable(intestine, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(intestine, has quality good)

Salient implies Plausible

0.24
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Salient(esophagus, has quality good)

Similarity expansion

0.68
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Salient(esophagus, has quality worse)
0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality worse)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Plausible(esophagus, has quality worse)
0.62
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality function)
0.61
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.31
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality worse)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.89
¬ Salient(esophagus, has quality function)
0.58
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Plausible(esophagus, has quality function)
0.49
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.78
Evidence: 0.54
Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality function)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.95
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.90
Salient(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.41
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.85
Plausible(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(esophagus, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.37
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(digestive system, has quality bad)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(organ, has quality worth)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(digestive system, has quality system)
0.21
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.54
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(digestive system, has quality definition)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Remarkable(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.91
¬ Typical(intestine, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.45
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.45
¬ Typical(digestive system, has quality bad)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(organ, has quality worth)
0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.73
¬ Typical(digestive system, has quality system)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(esophagus, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.85
¬ Typical(digestive system, has quality definition)