Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Ukrainian Defense Capabilities results contain 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 17.9% saturation with 472 hits. Analysis detected 1,950 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,640 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Ukrainian Defense Capabilities is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Ukrainian Defense Capabilities
Topic details
Total words: 2,640
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.6K 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 9.9%9.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.5%2.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.5%9.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 17.9%17.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.9%3.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.5%1.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 2.5%2.5%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 9.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 17.9%, sitewide 11.1%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.5%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 2.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.1%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 0.6%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.7%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos