Speaker summary
⁠33%3 analyzed articles/videos76.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chinese foreign ministry results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 30.6% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 329 faulty-reasoning hits from 76.333 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 25.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (16,672 of 28,364 speakers). This Chinese foreign ministry is better (less manipulative) than 58.80% of the peer group.
Chinese foreign ministry
Speaker details
Total words: 76.333
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

41% percentile
025507510041.2% percentile
25.4% BS Score3 analyzed videos76.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 17.4%17.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 10.4%10.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 17.4%17.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 30.6%30.6%

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%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 0.8%Framing Effect: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 19.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 0.0%Recency Bias: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 2.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 17.4%, sitewide 11.1%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 17.4%, sitewide 4.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 10.4%, sitewide 3.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos