Topic summary
⁠34%1 analyzed article/video1,795 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Financial Conflicts Of Interest results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Self-Serving Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.3% saturation with 716 hits. Analysis detected 3,113 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,385 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠17% (13,763 of 16,562 topics). This Financial Conflicts Of Interest is better (less manipulative) than 83.10% of the peer group.
Financial Conflicts Of Interest
Topic details
Total words: 5,385
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

17% percentile
025507510016.9% percentile
1.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.4K 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 1.1%1.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.6%0.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.0%2.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.9%0.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.6%0.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 13.3%13.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.0%1.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 8.5%8.5%

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 1.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 13.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Anecdotal: Topic 8.8%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 8.5%, sitewide 3.7%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.4%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Burden of Proof: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.4%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos