Topic summary
⁠0%4 analyzed articles/videos3,596 analyzed words
BS Summary: These New York State Budget results contain 48 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.3% saturation with 1,190 hits. Analysis detected 11,320 faulty-reasoning hits from 14,384 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠11% (13,678 of 15,341 topics). This New York State Budget is better (less manipulative) than 89.20% of the peer group.
New York State Budget
Topic details
Total words: 14,384
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

11% percentile
025507510010.8% percentile
1.6% BS Score4 analyzed articles14.4K 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 8.3%8.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.5%6.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.0%5.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.6%3.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.2%3.2%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.1%1.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 3.1%3.1%

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 8.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 7.5%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 3.7%In-Group Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 5.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 2.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos