Topic summary
95% 6 analyzed articles/videos 4,573 analyzed words
BS Summary: These College Football Playoff results contain 47 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Hasty Generalization , and Confirmation Bias , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.5% saturation with 2,498 hits . Analysis detected 22,253 faulty-reasoning hits from 14,311 analyzed words across 6 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of 57% (7,186 of 16,562 topics). This College Football Playoff is worse (more manipulative) than 56.60% of the peer group. College Football Playoff
Topic details
Total words: 14,311
Article count: 6
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
57% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 56.6% percentile 3.3% BS Score6 analyzed articles14.3K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 5.9% 5.9% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Topic 17.1% 17.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 4.0% 4.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 4.3% 4.3% Fundamental Attribution E… Sitewide 2.7% Topic 5.7% 5.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Topic 9.5% 9.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 17.5% 17.5% Loss Aversion Sitewide 2.5% Topic 0.8% 0.8% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias Sitewide 3.1% Topic 4.9% 4.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Topic 9.7% 9.7% 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 17.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 17.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Topic 9.7%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.5%, sitewide 7.5% Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 9.1% In-Group Bias: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 6.0% Halo Effect: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 5.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 2.7% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anecdotal: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 5.2% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 3.1% Anchoring Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.2%, sitewide 3.3% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 3.7% Ad Hominem: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 2.2% Recency Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst