Brookings⁠33%

Foreign Policy | Brookings ⁠78%

5/7/2023, 3:23:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 36% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 483 faulty-reasoning hits from 239 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,974 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.30% of the article peer group.

The Brookings Foreign Policy program is the leading center of high-quality, policy-relevant scholarship advancing actionable solutions to the major challenges to international peace and security. 
Brookings Foreign Policy scholars engage in in-depth, nonpartisan research and analysis aimed at informing policymakers and the public debate and developing concrete ideas for addressing the world’s toughest problems. 
Will China replace America on the world stage? 
Domestic stresses reshaping politics in Taiwan 
Waging war at arm’s length in Ukraine 
Who holds the advantage? 
Three perspectives on the US-China military balance 
Our experts shape the public discourse 
The DRC at a crossroads: Presidential succession and conflict in the east 
Vietnam, South China Sea, Spratly Island construction 
By expanding its network of harbors across the Spratlys, Hanoi is making it easier to move personnel, supplies and equipment between its occupied features and the mainland to sustain... 
US-India Strategic Partnership Forum 
How does India deal with its friends and rivals, and see its role in the world? 
On Global India, host Tanvi Madan and guests unpack India’s foreign policy and its international impact for experts and new learners alike. 
New York Times 
They [Indian officials] will particularly seek to understand the significance of Washington agreeing to a ‘constructive relationship of strategic stability’ with Beijing. 
China is also concerned about instability, and if Russian weapons and technology are getting to North Korea—which likes to march to its own drumbeat—that could be destabilizing... 
That’s... 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brookings: 4.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.9%Brookings: 4.9%Framing Effect15.9%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 3.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Brookings: 1.8%Pessimism Bias11.3%This article: 11.3%Brookings: 5.2%Negativity Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Brookings: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error9.2%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 25.1%Brookings: 1.2%Halo Effect25.1%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.2%Brookings: 3.6%Appeal to Authority9.2%This article: 3.3%Brookings: 1.8%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 5.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.4%Brookings: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.4%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Brookings: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.2%Brookings: 1.0%Unattributed Quote9.2%This article: 3.3%Brookings: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 21.3%Brookings: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice21.3%This article: 12.1%Brookings: 2.3%Indoctrination12.1%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 36.0%Brookings: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…36.0%

239 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech178writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Foreign Policy • 4 words • 100.0% coverageBrookings Foreign Policy • 25 words • 100.0% coverageBrookings Foreign Policy • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words89% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +84.3 ptsWriter: 15.7%Brookings Foreign Policy: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+53.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brookings Foreign Policy: 53.7%53.7%Biased Writer Voice+33.9 ptsWriter: 12.4%Brookings Foreign Policy: 46.3%46.3%Unattributed Quote-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Brookings Foreign Policy: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Brookings Foreign Policy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.