Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video2,116 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amenazas De Salud results contain 42 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 11% saturation with 932 hits. Analysis detected 5,924 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,464 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (14,499 of 16,562 topics). This Amenazas De Salud is better (less manipulative) than 87.50% of the peer group.
Amenazas De Salud
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠13%Amenazas De Salud (selected)2%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 8,464
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

13% percentile
025507510012.5% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles8.5K 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 5.2%5.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.9%9.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 11.0%11.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.8%0.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.6%1.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.6%0.6%

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 5.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 11.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 11.0%, sitewide 3.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 2.0%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos