Topic summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos426 analyzed words
BS Summary: These China Japan Relations results contain 21 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Negativity Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 21.4% saturation with 364 hits. Analysis detected 2,120 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,704 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 5.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (2,955 of 15,330 topics). This China Japan Relations is worse (more manipulative) than 80.70% of the peer group.
China Japan Relations
Topic details
Total words: 1,704
Article count: 2
Authors
?

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

81% percentile
025507510080.7% percentile
5.9% BS Score2 analyzed articles1.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 21.4%21.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.2%2.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 17.1%17.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.2%1.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 20.1%20.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.2%1.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 5.2%5.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 4.1%4.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 16.1%16.1%

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 20.1%, sitewide 26.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 21.4%, sitewide 3.3%Negativity Bias: Topic 16.1%, sitewide 19.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 17.1%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.1%, sitewide 7.5%Availability Heuristic: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 8.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 4.1%, sitewide 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 2.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.7%Composition/Division: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 0.2%Hindsight Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.5%Unattributed Quote: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 1.1%Begging the Question: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.7%Red Herring: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 0.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos