Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Israel Hamas Conflict results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ad Hominem, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 546 hits. Analysis detected 3,303 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,736 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 15,772 topics). This Israel Hamas Conflict is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Israel Hamas Conflict
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
⁠0%Israel Hamas Conflict (selected)0%
Topic details
Total words: 2,736
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% 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 6.7%6.7%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 10.2%10.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.6%4.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Topic 4.8%4.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 20.0%20.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 16.1%16.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 4.5%4.5%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 0.8%0.8%

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 6.7%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 20.0%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 16.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 11.1%Ad Hominem: Topic 10.2%, sitewide 2.2%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 5.3%Burden of Proof: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 0.4%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.7%False Dilemma: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 3.3%, sitewide 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.7%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.1%Tu Quoque: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Begging the Question: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 1.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos