Topic summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos
BS Summary: These Military Procurement results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Overconfidence Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 548 hits. Analysis detected 2,540 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,832 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Military Procurement is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Military Procurement
Topic details
Total words: 2,832
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles2.8K 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 10.3%10.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.9%0.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 19.4%19.4%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Topic 6.7%6.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.8%5.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.7%3.7%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Topic 0.4%0.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 6.7%6.7%

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 10.3%, sitewide 26.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 19.4%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 0.5%Halo Effect: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 6.7%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 4.6%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 5.3%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.2%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.9%Unattributed Quote: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 1.1%Composition/Division: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 0.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.2%, sitewide 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos