Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Hope Scholarship Program results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Optimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 34.7% saturation with 141 hits. Analysis detected 412 faulty-reasoning hits from 406 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Hope Scholarship Program is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Hope Scholarship Program
Topic details
Total words: 406
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles406 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.4%5.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 34.7%34.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 12.8%12.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 10.8%10.8%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 9.4%9.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 5.7%5.7%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 5.4%5.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 7.9%7.9%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 3.9%3.9%

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 34.7%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Topic 12.8%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 10.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 9.4%, sitewide 5.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 7.9%, sitewide 9.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 5.7%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 3.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos