Topic summary
⁠56%4 analyzed articles/videos1,169 analyzed words
BS Summary: These US Cuba Relations results contain 41 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 1,708 hits. Analysis detected 11,742 faulty-reasoning hits from 11,005 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (9,472 of 16,246 topics). This US Cuba Relations is better (less manipulative) than 58.30% of the peer group.
US Cuba Relations
Topic details
Total words: 11,005
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

42% percentile
025507510041.7% percentile
2.6% BS Score4 analyzed articles11K 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 15.5%15.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 7.2%7.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.4%2.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.7%0.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 13.3%13.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 9.7%9.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.0%1.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.8%1.8%

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 15.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 13.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 7.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 9.7%, sitewide 5.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.8%, sitewide 3.3%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 2.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 3.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.8%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos