Topic summary
⁠26%2 analyzed articles/videos4,870 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dobbs V Jackson Womens Health Organization results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 10.3% saturation with 2,003 hits. Analysis detected 12,833 faulty-reasoning hits from 19,480 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (15,109 of 16,562 topics). This Dobbs V Jackson Womens Health Organization is better (less manipulative) than 91.20% of the peer group.
Dobbs V Jackson Womens Health Organization
Topic details
Total words: 19,480
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

9% percentile
02550751008.8% percentile
1.5% BS Score2 analyzed articles19.5K 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 10.3%10.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.7%6.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.7%4.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.2%3.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.2%1.2%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.2%0.2%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.2%0.2%

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 10.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 5.3%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.3%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos