Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video834 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Combat Sports results contain 33 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 18.3% saturation with 610 hits. Analysis detected 3,705 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,336 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠58% (7,041 of 16,562 topics). This Combat Sports is worse (more manipulative) than 57.50% of the peer group.
Combat Sports
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠58%Combat Sports (selected)4%
⁠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: 3,336
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

58% percentile
025507510057.5% percentile
3.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.3K 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 7.7%7.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.2%3.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.1%2.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 18.3%18.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.7%0.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.6%1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 7.2%7.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 8.1%8.1%Composition/DivisionSitewide 0.2%Topic 3.0%3.0%

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 7.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 19.2%Hasty Generalization: Topic 18.3%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 8.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 8.7%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 7.2%, sitewide 3.3%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.0%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 2.7%Composition/Division: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.5%Recency Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.7%Begging the Question: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos