Topic summary
⁠92%1 analyzed article/video1,447 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Investment Banking results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Self-Serving Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 10.7% saturation with 464 hits. Analysis detected 4,498 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,341 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (9,660 of 16,562 topics). This Investment Banking is better (less manipulative) than 58.30% of the peer group.
Investment Banking
Topic details
Total words: 4,341
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

42% percentile
025507510041.7% percentile
2.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K 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 3.3%3.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.6%3.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.4%5.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.6%1.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.8%4.8%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 7.4%7.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.8%1.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 9.2%9.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 10.7%10.7%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 1.0%1.0%

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 3.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 10.7%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Topic 9.2%, sitewide 6.0%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 8.1%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 7.4%, sitewide 3.7%Halo Effect: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 4.0%False Dilemma: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.4%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.1%Hindsight Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.5%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.2%Primacy Effect: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos