Topic summary
77% 35 analyzed articles/videos 21,580 analyzed words
BS Summary: These US China Relations results contain 54 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Biased Writer Voice , and Hasty Generalization , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.5% saturation with 12,262 hits . Analysis detected 114,924 faulty-reasoning hits from 106,843 analyzed words across 35 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of 23% (12,746 of 16,562 topics). This US China Relations is better (less manipulative) than 77.00% of the peer group. US China Relations
Topic details
Total words: 106,843
Article count: 35
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
23% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 23.0% percentile 2.0% BS Score35 analyzed articles106.8K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Topic 11.1% 11.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 3.8% 3.8% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 11.5% 11.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 4.6% 4.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 2.6% 2.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Topic 1.6% 1.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Topic 2.2% 2.2% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Topic 1.1% 1.1% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Topic 0.8% 0.8% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Topic 8.3% 8.3% 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 11.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 11.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 8.3%, sitewide 5.3% Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 1.9% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.8%, sitewide 3.3% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.7% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.7% False Dilemma: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 1.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.7%, sitewide 0.8% Recency Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst