Topic summary
⁠85%2 analyzed articles/videos1,602 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Child Care Funding results contain 35 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.9% saturation with 1,437 hits. Analysis detected 8,803 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,806 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 5.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (3,716 of 16,558 topics). This Child Care Funding is worse (more manipulative) than 77.60% of the peer group.
Child Care Funding
Topic details
Total words: 4,806
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

78% percentile
025507510077.6% percentile
5.2% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 20.1%20.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 29.9%29.9%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 20.4%20.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.6%4.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 9.6%9.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 10.5%10.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.2%0.2%Genetic FallacySitewide 1.4%Topic 5.8%5.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 7.1%7.1%

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%Negativity Bias: Topic 29.9%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Topic 20.4%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 20.1%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 10.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 10.4%, sitewide 9.1%Anchoring Bias: Topic 9.6%, sitewide 4.0%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 7.1%, sitewide 3.3%In-Group Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 6.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 3.1%Anecdotal: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 5.2%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 1.4%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 5.3%Pessimism Bias: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 1.9%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 4.6%Begging the Question: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 1.7%Composition/Division: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 0.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.5%Primacy Effect: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos