Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video84 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Iran Talks results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 34.5% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 356 faulty-reasoning hits from 336 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 13.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (716 of 15,597 topics). This Iran Talks is worse (more manipulative) than 95.40% of the peer group.
Iran Talks
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 336
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

95% percentile
025507510095.4% percentile
13.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles336 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 11.3%11.3%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 11.3%11.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 14.3%14.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 34.5%34.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.5%4.5%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 4.5%4.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 22.6%22.6%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Topic 3.0%3.0%

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 34.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 22.6%, sitewide 19.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 14.3%, sitewide 5.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 11.3%, sitewide 0.8%Pessimism Bias: Topic 11.3%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 11.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 1.1%Recency Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 2.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos