Topic summary
⁠89%1 analyzed article/video668 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Ministry Of Defence results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.5% saturation with 171 hits. Analysis detected 1,941 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,004 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (8,076 of 16,562 topics). This Ministry Of Defence is worse (more manipulative) than 51.20% of the peer group.
Ministry Of Defence
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠52%Ministry Of Defence (selected)4%
⁠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%
Topic details
Total words: 2,004
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

51% percentile
025507510051.2% percentile
3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2K 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 8.5%8.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.5%4.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 7.0%7.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.6%2.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.4%4.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.1%1.1%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 0.3%0.3%

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 8.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 7.1%, sitewide 5.3%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 3.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 1.9%Hindsight Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 2.7%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.3%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos