hysterectomy: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents surgical procedure
Weight: 0.76
, surgery
Weight: 0.76
, operation
Weight: 0.61
, option
Weight: 0.55
, treatment
Weight: 0.55
Siblings mastectomy
Weight: 0.41
, plastic surgery
Weight: 0.40
, tonsillectomy
Weight: 0.39
, vasectomy
Weight: 0.38
, prostatectomy
Weight: 0.37

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
has quality better 0.90
has quality wrong 0.87
was good 0.81
has quality sin 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

0.60
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(surgery, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.86
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.05
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Plausible(option, has quality better)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.46
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(surgery, has quality good)
0.04
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(surgery, was good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.44
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, has quality good)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.70
¬ Remarkable(option, has quality better)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.11
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.28
¬ Remarkable(vasectomy, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.34
¬ Remarkable(vasectomy, has quality jokes)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
¬ Remarkable(vasectomy, has quality sin)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.39
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.88
Plausible(surgery, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.35
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.74
Plausible(option, has quality better)
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.33
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good)
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.43
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.28
Remarkable(vasectomy, has quality wrong)
Evidence: 0.40
¬ Plausible(vasectomy, has quality wrong)
0.42
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good)
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.41
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing)
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, is good thing)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.57
Remarkable(vasectomy, has quality sin)
Evidence: 0.49
¬ Plausible(vasectomy, has quality sin)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.34
Remarkable(vasectomy, has quality jokes)
Evidence: 0.51
¬ Plausible(vasectomy, has quality jokes)

Salient implies Plausible

0.22
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Salient(hysterectomy, has quality bad)

Similarity expansion

0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.57
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Salient(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.12
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.33
Salient(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.32
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.39
Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.34
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(surgery, has quality good)
0.29
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.69
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(surgery, was good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 0.87
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.59
¬ Typical(vasectomy, has quality wrong)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.72
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.83
Similarity weight: 0.76
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Typical(vasectomy, has quality sin)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.67
¬ Typical(vasectomy, has quality jokes)
0.08
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.65
Similarity weight: 0.90
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Typical(option, has quality better)
0.26
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(surgery, has quality good)
0.23
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.58
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.54
Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(surgery, was good)