Keyword summary
0%1 analyzed article/video370 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Purdue Pharma results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 1,387 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,480 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.9% and a BS Rank of 70% (11,487 of 37,536 keywords). This Purdue Pharma is worse (more manipulative) than 69.40% of the peer group.
Purdue Pharma
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
0%Lieutenant Governor1%
0%Agriculture Commissioner1%
0%Texas Supreme Court1%
0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
0%Running Back1%
70%Purdue Pharma (selected)4%
100%Rad Power Bikes60%
100%Mike Lewis60%
100%Joni Balter60%
100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 1,480
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

69% percentile
025507510069.4% percentile
3.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.5K 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 6.8%6.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 2.3%2.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 1.0%1.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 3.5%3.5%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Keyword 4.3%4.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 1.1%1.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Keyword 1.0%1.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Keyword 0.5%0.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 3.6%3.6%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Keyword 5.1%5.1%

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%Framing Effect: Keyword 6.8%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 16.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 17.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 3.6%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Keyword 5.8%, sitewide 6.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 5.3%, sitewide 2.7%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 5.2%Hindsight Bias: Keyword 5.1%, sitewide 1.4%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 4.6%Indoctrination: Keyword 4.3%, sitewide 0.0%Primacy Effect: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 3.3%Pessimism Bias: Keyword 3.2%, sitewide 1.9%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 2.9%, sitewide 2.2%Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 2.5%Burden of Proof: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 0.4%Unattributed Quote: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%False Dilemma: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos