Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These New York City Housing Market results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 8.6% saturation with 215 hits. Analysis detected 1,693 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,499 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This New York City Housing Market is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
New York City Housing Market
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%New York City Housing Market (selected)0%
Topic details
Total words: 2,499
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.5K 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 2.2%2.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 8.6%8.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.9%0.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.7%0.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.2%1.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.4%4.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.8%6.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.8%0.8%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%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 2.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 8.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 8.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 6.0%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.2%Recency Bias: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 2.7%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 1.9%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.2%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.9%Bandwagon: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.2%Horn Effect: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.0%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.1%Primacy Effect: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos