Topic summary
⁠15%1 analyzed article/video1,219 analyzed words
BS Summary: These US Lebanon Diplomacy results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 3.9% saturation with 190 hits. Analysis detected 1,605 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,876 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠10% (22,114 of 24,545 topics). This US Lebanon Diplomacy is better (less manipulative) than 90.10% of the peer group.
US Lebanon Diplomacy
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 4,876
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

10% percentile
02550751009.9% percentile
1.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.9K 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 3.9%3.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.5%3.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.7%2.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.8%0.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.1%1.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.0%2.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.2%0.2%

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 3.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.7%, sitewide 0.8%Begging the Question: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.5%Red Herring: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.7%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos