Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Cba Negotiations results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.8% saturation with 488 hits. Analysis detected 3,207 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,804 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 15,763 topics). This Cba Negotiations is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Cba Negotiations
Topic details
Total words: 3,804
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 12.8%12.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.3%3.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.2%9.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.7%0.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.2%3.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.2%1.2%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.5%0.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 9.7%9.7%

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: Topic 12.8%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 9.7%, sitewide 6.0%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 1.9%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.5%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.7%Begging the Question: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos