Topic summary
⁠37%3 analyzed articles/videos1,210 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Federal Emergency Management Agency results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Self-Serving Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.9% saturation with 824 hits. Analysis detected 5,534 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,256 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠9% (15,100 of 16,562 topics). This Federal Emergency Management Agency is better (less manipulative) than 91.20% of the peer group.
Federal Emergency Management Agency

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

9% percentile
02550751008.8% percentile
1.5% BS Score3 analyzed articles9.3K 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 7.0%7.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 8.9%8.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.4%2.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.6%1.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.9%0.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.1%1.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.9%1.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.3%0.3%

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 7.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 8.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.5%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.5%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos