Topic summary
67% 16 analyzed articles/videos 12,179 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Environmental Science results contain 48 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Overconfidence Bias , with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 6.9% saturation with 3,945 hits . Analysis detected 43,547 faulty-reasoning hits from 56,813 analyzed words across 16 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 10% (13,918 of 15,447 topics). This Environmental Science is better (less manipulative) than 90.10% of the peer group. Environmental Science
Topic details
Total words: 56,813
Article count: 16
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
10% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 9.9% percentile 1.6% BS Score16 analyzed articles56.8K 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% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Topic 5.8% 5.8% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 6.9% 6.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 4.6% 4.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Topic 0.2% 0.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 3.1% 3.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Topic 0.9% 0.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Topic 2.6% 2.6% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 6.9% 6.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Topic 4.6% 4.6% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Topic 2.1% 2.1% 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% Framing Effect: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.8%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.5% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.8% Bandwagon: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Topic 0.0%, sitewide 2.2% Indoctrination: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst