Topic summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video751 analyzed words
BS Summary: These China Russia Relations results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.4% saturation with 492 hits. Analysis detected 3,726 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,004 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (6,529 of 23,554 topics). This China Russia Relations is worse (more manipulative) than 72.30% of the peer group.
China Russia Relations
Topic details
Total words: 3,004
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

72% percentile
025507510072.3% percentile
3.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles3K 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 3.4%3.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.9%3.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 16.4%16.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 10.8%10.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.2%3.2%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Topic 7.9%7.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.8%1.8%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Topic 5.3%5.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 11.2%11.2%

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 3.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 10.8%, sitewide 19.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 16.4%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 11.2%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.9%, sitewide 7.5%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 9.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 7.9%, sitewide 1.4%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.9%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 6.4%, sitewide 4.6%Optimism Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 6.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 1.9%Anecdotal: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 4.0%Unattributed Quote: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.8%, sitewide 3.3%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 1.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Composition/Division: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 0.2%Hindsight Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos