implantation: has quality bad

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents surgical procedure
Weight: 0.63
, treatment
Weight: 0.52
, construction
Weight: 0.49
, method
Weight: 0.49
Siblings implant
Weight: 0.37
, plastic surgery
Weight: 0.36
, ablation
Weight: 0.35
, hysterectomy
Weight: 0.35
, mastectomy
Weight: 0.35

Related properties

Property Similarity
has quality bad 1.00
has quality good 0.96
be bad for environment 0.80
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

0.51
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(implantation, has quality bad)
0.50
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(implantation, has quality bad)
0.15
Rule weight: 0.66
Evidence weight: 0.29
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(construction, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(implantation, has quality bad)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.08
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.85
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.71
¬ Plausible(method, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.84
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(construction, has quality good)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Plausible(construction, be bad for environment)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.14
¬ Remarkable(construction, be bad for environment)
0.39
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.68
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Remarkable(method, has quality bad)
0.31
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(construction, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.79
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.77
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.70
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
¬ Remarkable(implant, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.57
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Remarkable(implant, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.38
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.71
Plausible(method, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(implantation, has quality bad)
0.37
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(construction, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(implantation, has quality bad)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.75
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.14
Plausible(construction, be bad for environment) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.79
¬ Plausible(implantation, has quality bad)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.57
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.39
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.47
Remarkable(implant, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.72
¬ Plausible(implant, has quality bad)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
Remarkable(implant, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Plausible(implant, has quality good)
0.52
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.91
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality jokes) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Plausible(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.44
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Salient implies Plausible

0.23
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.81
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Salient(implantation, has quality bad)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Salient(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad)

Typical implies Plausible

0.39
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.82
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.79
Plausible(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(implantation, has quality bad)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.30
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.74
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(construction, be bad for environment)
0.25
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.24
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.50
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.66
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.73
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.43
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality jokes)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.48
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.83
¬ Typical(implant, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.47
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.45
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Typical(implant, has quality good)
0.05
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.75
Evidence: 0.63
¬ Remarkable(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.81
¬ Typical(method, has quality bad)
0.40
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.87
Similarity weight: 0.96
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(construction, has quality good)
0.36
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.83
Typical(implantation, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.42
¬ Typical(construction, be bad for environment)