Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,861 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Agricultural Research Funding results contain 37 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 10.6% saturation with 792 hits. Analysis detected 5,904 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,444 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠28% (11,203 of 15,399 topics). This Agricultural Research Funding is better (less manipulative) than 72.70% of the peer group.
Agricultural Research Funding
Topic details
Total words: 7,444
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

27% percentile
025507510027.3% percentile
2.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles7.4K 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 4.7%4.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.4%5.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 10.6%10.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.1%1.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.4%2.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.3%1.3%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 4.0%4.0%

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 4.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 10.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.6%Indoctrination: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 0.0%Status Quo Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 2.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 3.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos