Two issues should be distinguished in the debate over an “evident” connection: whether an implication is mental and how directly its relation appears. Some technical accounts demand an immediately grasped necessary relation; others adopt a wider explanatory threshold.
Classical discussions treat the human capacity for laughter as a characteristic property. Yet a listener unfamiliar with that classification may need to learn the relationship before recognizing it. The nature of the relation and the audience's knowledge of it are distinct questions.
Whenever “bayyin” qualifies implication, one must determine which standard of evidentness is intended. The same technical word does not automatically carry an identical condition in every argument.