Keyword summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos1,398 analyzed words
BS Summary: These New Alliance For Food Security And Nutrition results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 16.4% saturation with 744 hits. Analysis detected 3,421 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,532 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (17,427 of 37,536 keywords). This New Alliance For Food Security And Nutrition is worse (more manipulative) than 53.60% of the peer group.
New Alliance For Food Security And Nutrition
Keyword ranking list
Keyword details
Total words: 4,532
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

54% percentile
025507510053.6% percentile
3.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

KeywordSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Keyword 2.9%2.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 7.7%7.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 0.9%0.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 4.0%4.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 2.5%2.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 0.4%0.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 2.1%2.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Keyword 1.5%1.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Keyword 0.9%0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Keyword 6.7%6.7%

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: Keyword 2.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 16.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 7.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 4.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 6.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 6.7%, sitewide 3.3%Optimism Bias: Keyword 4.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 5.4%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 5.2%Recency Bias: Keyword 4.3%, sitewide 2.7%Pessimism Bias: Keyword 4.1%, sitewide 1.9%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.9%, sitewide 0.8%Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos