Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Chinese Arctic Interests results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.3% saturation with 612 hits. Analysis detected 4,146 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,602 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 15,753 topics). This Chinese Arctic Interests is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Chinese Arctic Interests
Topic details
Total words: 4,602
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.6K 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 12.3%12.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.0%3.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 12.3%12.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 13.3%13.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.9%3.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.0%6.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.1%1.1%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%

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 12.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 13.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 12.3%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.4%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.2%Begging the Question: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos