Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,087 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Financial Speculation results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 40.5% saturation with 1,761 hits. Analysis detected 8,109 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,348 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠70% (4,637 of 15,407 topics). This Financial Speculation is worse (more manipulative) than 69.90% of the peer group.
Financial Speculation
Topic details
Total words: 4,348
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

70% percentile
025507510069.9% percentile
4.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 40.5%40.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 6.8%6.8%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Topic 14.5%14.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 31.0%31.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.4%2.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 7.8%7.8%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 8.2%8.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 13.5%13.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.8%0.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%

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%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 40.5%, sitewide 5.3%Negativity Bias: Topic 31.0%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 15.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 14.5%, sitewide 2.0%Confirmation Bias: Topic 13.5%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 9.1%Ad Hominem: Topic 8.2%, sitewide 2.2%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.2%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.7%, sitewide 3.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.6%False Dilemma: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 1.5%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.7%Composition/Division: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.8%Horn Effect: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos