Topic summary
⁠49%1 analyzed article/video1,514 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Financial Hardship results contain 38 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Anecdotal, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 2,214 hits. Analysis detected 12,323 faulty-reasoning hits from 22,272 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠7% (15,439 of 16,562 topics). This Financial Hardship is better (less manipulative) than 93.20% of the peer group.
Financial Hardship
Topic details
Total words: 22,272
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

7% percentile
02550751006.8% percentile
1.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles22.3K 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 4.0%4.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.1%5.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.9%9.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.4%2.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.1%0.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.2%1.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.2%2.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.7%0.7%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 4.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 3.1%Loss Aversion: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.7%Begging the Question: Topic 0.0%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos