Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video61 analyzed words
BS Summary: These International Atomic Energy Agency results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 41.8% saturation with 102 hits. Analysis detected 407 faulty-reasoning hits from 244 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 23.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (152 of 23,762 topics). This International Atomic Energy Agency is worse (more manipulative) than 99.40% of the peer group.
International Atomic Energy Agency
Topic details
Total words: 244
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

99% percentile
025507510099.4% percentile
23.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles244 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Topic 41.8%41.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 41.8%41.8%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 20.9%20.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 20.9%20.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 8.2%8.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 29.1%29.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 4.1%4.1%

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%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 41.8%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 41.8%, sitewide 2.7%Framing Effect: Topic 29.1%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Topic 20.9%, sitewide 7.5%Unattributed Quote: Topic 20.9%, sitewide 1.1%Negativity Bias: Topic 8.2%, sitewide 19.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos