Topic summary
⁠91%1 analyzed article/video392 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Endangered Species Protection results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12.2% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,236 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,176 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (4,627 of 15,832 topics). This Endangered Species Protection is worse (more manipulative) than 70.80% of the peer group.
Endangered Species Protection
Topic details
Total words: 1,176
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

71% percentile
025507510070.8% percentile
4.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.2K 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 12.2%12.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.3%11.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 12.1%12.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 7.2%7.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 2.2%2.2%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 6.5%6.5%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Topic 2.0%2.0%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Topic 3.9%3.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 3.7%3.7%

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 12.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 12.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 7.2%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 10.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 7.5%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 3.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 4.0%Status Quo Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.7%, sitewide 3.3%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 1.9%Bandwagon: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.2%Tu Quoque: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 0.2%Composition/Division: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.2%Burden of Proof: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 0.4%Begging the Question: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.7%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos