Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Financial Scrutiny results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Anecdotal, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 13.3% saturation with 245 hits. Analysis detected 1,747 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,845 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Financial Scrutiny is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Financial Scrutiny
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
⁠0%Financial Scrutiny (selected)0%
Topic details
Total words: 1,845
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.8K 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 7.2%7.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.1%3.1%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 9.3%9.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.1%11.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.2%5.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 13.3%13.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 2.2%2.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 8.3%8.3%

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 7.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 13.3%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 11.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 9.3%, sitewide 1.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 9.1%Anecdotal: Topic 8.3%, sitewide 5.2%Confirmation Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 2.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 4.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 3.2%, sitewide 0.8%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Begging the Question: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 1.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 1.9%No True Scotsman: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.1%Red Herring: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 0.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos