Keyword summary
77% 3 analyzed articles/videos 20,875 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The Beijing Brief results contain 51 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Hasty Generalization , and Negativity Bias , with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 9.4% saturation with 5,894 hits . Analysis detected 41,837 faulty-reasoning hits from 62,625 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.3% and a BS Rank of 5% (35,959 of 37,536 keywords). This The Beijing Brief is better (less manipulative) than 95.80% of the peer group. The Beijing Brief
Keyword details
Total words: 62,625
Article count: 3
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
4% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 4.2% percentile 1.3% BS Score3 analyzed articles62.6K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Keyword 6.3% 6.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 4.8% 4.8% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 1.6% 1.6% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 3.6% 3.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 2.5% 2.5% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Keyword 0.3% 0.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Keyword 0.4% 0.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Keyword 1.1% 1.1% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Keyword 0.6% 0.6% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Keyword 1.4% 1.4% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Keyword 6.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 4.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 3.6%, sitewide 11.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 9.4%, sitewide 7.5% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 6.2%, sitewide 8.1% In-Group Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Keyword 1.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 4.7%, sitewide 4.6% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 4.3%, sitewide 3.3% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 3.7% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 0.8% False Dilemma: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 1.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst