Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video133 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Agency For International Development (usaid) results contain 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Loss Aversion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 57.8% saturation with 229 hits. Analysis detected 763 faulty-reasoning hits from 396 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 17.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (347 of 16,562 topics). This Agency For International Development (usaid) is worse (more manipulative) than 97.90% of the peer group.
Agency For International Development (usaid)
Topic details
Total words: 396
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

98% percentile
025507510097.9% percentile
17.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles396 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 57.8%57.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 30.6%30.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 37.1%37.1%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Topic 17.4%17.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.8%5.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 11.6%11.6%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Topic 10.3%10.3%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Topic 4.5%4.5%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 5.0%5.0%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 4.5%4.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Framing Effect: Topic 57.8%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 37.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 30.6%, sitewide 11.1%Loss Aversion: Topic 17.4%, sitewide 2.5%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 15.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 11.6%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 10.3%, sitewide 2.7%Confirmation Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 7.5%Pessimism Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 1.9%Anchoring Bias: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 4.0%Primacy Effect: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos