Topic summary
⁠0%4 analyzed articles/videos1,914 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Marine Conservation results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Hasty Generalization, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 6.4% saturation with 794 hits. Analysis detected 8,670 faulty-reasoning hits from 12,314 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠12% (14,673 of 16,562 topics). This Marine Conservation is better (less manipulative) than 88.60% of the peer group.
Marine Conservation

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

11% percentile
025507510011.4% percentile
1.6% BS Score4 analyzed articles12.3K 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 4.6%4.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.0%4.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.8%5.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.4%2.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.9%1.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.0%2.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.5%6.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.7%1.7%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%

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 4.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.2%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.5%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 1.9%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Indoctrination: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos