Topic summary
⁠43%3 analyzed articles/videos2,622 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Food Deserts results contain 47 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Halo Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 7.4% saturation with 975 hits. Analysis detected 10,510 faulty-reasoning hits from 13,112 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (13,341 of 15,330 topics). This Food Deserts is better (less manipulative) than 87.00% of the peer group.
Food Deserts

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

13% percentile
025507510013.0% percentile
1.7% BS Score3 analyzed articles13.1K 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 7.4%7.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.3%4.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.6%3.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.4%2.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.2%2.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.5%2.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.7%1.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 2.5%2.5%

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 7.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.9%, sitewide 3.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.8%, sitewide 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos