surgery: was good

from Quasimodo
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Plausible Typical Remarkable Salient

Related concepts

Parents surgical procedure
Weight: 0.59
, treatment
Weight: 0.59
, intervention
Weight: 0.58
, cause
Weight: 0.57
, hospital care
Weight: 0.57
Siblings hysterectomy
Weight: 0.76
, plastic surgery
Weight: 0.70
, appendectomy
Weight: 0.66
, tonsillectomy
Weight: 0.64
, hip
Weight: 0.64

Related properties

Property Similarity
was good 1.00
is good thing 0.85
has quality good 0.84
has quality bad 0.81
was done in 1800s 0.80
go bad 0.79
was dangerous at start 0.79

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: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(intervention, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(surgery, was good)

Plausibility inheritance from parent to child

0.07
Rule weight: 0.09
Evidence weight: 0.90
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.76
¬ Plausible(intervention, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity betweem a parent and a child

0.29
Rule weight: 0.58
Evidence weight: 0.60
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.65
¬ Remarkable(intervention, has quality good)

Remarkability exclusitivity between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
¬ Remarkable(hip, go bad)
0.10
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
¬ Remarkable(hip, has quality bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.33
¬ Remarkable(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.13
Evidence weight: 0.53
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
¬ Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing)

Remarkability from parent implausibility

0.32
Rule weight: 0.42
Evidence weight: 0.92
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.76
Plausible(intervention, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.87
¬ Plausible(surgery, was good)

Remarkability from sibling implausibility

0.50
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.98
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.77
Remarkable(plastic surgery, is good thing) ⋁
Evidence: 0.75
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, is good thing)
0.48
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.11
Remarkable(hip, has quality bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.10
¬ Plausible(hip, has quality bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
Remarkable(plastic surgery, has quality good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.68
¬ Plausible(plastic surgery, has quality good)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
Evidence weight: 1.00
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.03
Remarkable(hip, go bad) ⋁
Evidence: 0.02
¬ Plausible(hip, go bad)
0.47
Rule weight: 0.60
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)

Salient implies Plausible

0.25
Rule weight: 0.28
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.93
¬ Salient(surgery, was good)

Similarity expansion

0.67
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.95
¬ Salient(surgery, has quality good)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.99
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.19
¬ Salient(surgery, was dangerous at start)
0.66
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Typical(surgery, has quality good)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.97
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.23
¬ Plausible(surgery, was dangerous at start)
0.65
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.50
¬ Typical(surgery, was dangerous at start)
0.64
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.94
¬ Salient(surgery, was done in 1800s)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.96
¬ Typical(surgery, was done in 1800s)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.88
¬ Plausible(surgery, has quality good)
0.63
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.93
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.17
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was dangerous at start)
0.60
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.90
¬ Plausible(surgery, was done in 1800s)
0.55
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.76
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, has quality good)
0.54
Rule weight: 0.85
Evidence weight: 0.80
Similarity weight: 0.80
Evidence: 0.61
Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.53
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was done in 1800s)

Typical and Remarkable implies Salient

0.13
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.96
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.93
Salient(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good)

Typical implies Plausible

0.42
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.88
Similarity weight: 1.00
Evidence: 0.87
Plausible(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.92
¬ Typical(surgery, was good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between a parent and a child

0.22
Rule weight: 0.51
Evidence weight: 0.51
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(intervention, has quality good)

Typicality and Rermarkability incompatibility between siblings

0.10
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.89
Similarity weight: 0.79
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.18
¬ Typical(hip, go bad)
0.09
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.78
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.36
¬ Typical(hip, has quality bad)
0.07
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.67
Similarity weight: 0.81
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.54
¬ Typical(hysterectomy, has quality bad)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.55
Similarity weight: 0.85
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.74
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, is good thing)
0.06
Rule weight: 0.14
Evidence weight: 0.49
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.61
¬ Remarkable(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.84
¬ Typical(plastic surgery, has quality good)

Typicality inheritance from parent to child

0.38
Rule weight: 0.48
Evidence weight: 0.94
Similarity weight: 0.84
Evidence: 0.92
Typical(surgery, was good) ⋁
Evidence: 0.80
¬ Typical(intervention, has quality good)