Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video957 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Iran Conflict Impact On Cuba Policy results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.5% saturation with 324 hits. Analysis detected 2,714 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,828 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (8,746 of 16,562 topics). This Iran Conflict Impact On Cuba Policy is better (less manipulative) than 52.80% of the peer group.
Iran Conflict Impact On Cuba Policy
Topic details
Total words: 3,828
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

47% percentile
025507510047.2% percentile
2.8% 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 8.5%8.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.7%6.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.0%5.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.4%3.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.2%1.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.2%0.2%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Topic 5.9%5.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 7.0%7.0%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 1.3%1.3%

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 8.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 7.0%, sitewide 3.3%Halo Effect: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.7%Hindsight Bias: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 1.4%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 4.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 3.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.7%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 1.1%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.9%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Slippery Slope: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 0.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos