Topic summary
⁠51%1 analyzed article/video1,696 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Government Policy On Forests results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.1% saturation with 870 hits. Analysis detected 2,795 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,088 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (12,510 of 16,562 topics). This Government Policy On Forests is better (less manipulative) than 75.50% of the peer group.
Government Policy On Forests
Topic details
Total words: 5,088
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

25% percentile
025507510024.5% percentile
2.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.1K 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 1.9%1.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 6.8%6.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.3%0.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.5%0.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.4%0.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 2.1%2.1%

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 1.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 17.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 5.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 1.9%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.0%False Dilemma: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.5%Hindsight Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.4%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.2%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos