Topic summary
⁠40%4 analyzed articles/videos2,079 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Medical Emergencies results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 9.5% saturation with 751 hits. Analysis detected 3,942 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,870 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠18% (18,937 of 23,072 topics). This Medical Emergencies is better (less manipulative) than 82.10% of the peer group.
Medical Emergencies

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

18% percentile
025507510017.9% percentile
1.5% BS Score4 analyzed articles7.9K 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%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 5.2%5.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.6%1.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.1%1.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.3%0.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 9.5%9.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.4%2.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 2.2%2.2%

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 5.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 9.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.2%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.1%Indoctrination: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos