Topic summary
⁠40%4 analyzed articles/videos2,180 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Food Contamination results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Self-Serving Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.9% saturation with 1,141 hits. Analysis detected 7,910 faulty-reasoning hits from 12,849 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (15,821 of 16,504 topics). This Food Contamination is better (less manipulative) than 95.90% of the peer group.
Food Contamination

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

4% percentile
02550751004.1% percentile
1.3% BS Score4 analyzed articles12.8K 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 2.0%2.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.5%1.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 8.9%8.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.4%0.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.5%0.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.7%5.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.4%1.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.3%3.3%

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 2.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 8.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.5%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 1.1%Bandwagon: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.0%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos