Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video914 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Global Health Emergency results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.6% saturation with 318 hits. Analysis detected 2,177 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,742 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (8,370 of 16,558 topics). This Global Health Emergency is better (less manipulative) than 50.50% of the peer group.
Global Health Emergency
Topic details
Total words: 2,742
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

50% percentile
025507510049.5% percentile
2.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.7K 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 2.7%2.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.8%3.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.6%11.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.7%3.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.9%0.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.2%1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 6.2%6.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.5%0.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.8%2.8%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Topic 6.1%6.1%

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 2.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 6.2%, sitewide 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 1.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.0%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 1.9%Indoctrination: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.0%Recency Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.7%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.0%False Dilemma: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.5%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.6%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos