Topic summary
51%1 analyzed article/video248 analyzed words
BS Summary: These South China Sea Disputes results contain 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Anecdotal, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.8% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 665 faulty-reasoning hits from 992 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.8% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,119 of 21,201 topics). This South China Sea Disputes is worse (more manipulative) than 80.60% of the peer group.
South China Sea Disputes
Topic details
Loading chart...
Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)
South China Sea Disputes attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.
Loading chart...
South China Sea Disputes vs sitewide
South China Sea Disputes attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.