Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,371 analyzed words
BS Summary: These University Negotiations results contain 29 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 7.8% saturation with 430 hits. Analysis detected 3,178 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,484 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ⁠24% (12,714 of 16,562 topics). This University Negotiations is better (less manipulative) than 76.80% of the peer group.
University Negotiations
Topic details
Total words: 5,484
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

23% percentile
025507510023.2% percentile
2.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.5K 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 5.1%5.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.1%2.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.0%6.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.1%1.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.8%1.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.9%1.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.8%0.8%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.0%1.0%

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 5.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 6.0%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.9%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.6%, sitewide 0.8%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos