Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video529 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Non Profit Funding results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 19.3% saturation with 408 hits. Analysis detected 2,216 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,116 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (7,290 of 16,562 topics). This Non Profit Funding is worse (more manipulative) than 56.00% of the peer group.
Non Profit Funding
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠56%Non Profit Funding (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: 2,116
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

56% percentile
025507510056.0% percentile
3.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.1K 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 7.9%7.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.0%3.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.8%0.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.6%1.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.1%2.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.5%4.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.8%0.8%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 4.6%4.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 9.4%9.4%

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 7.9%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 19.3%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 19.2%Optimism Bias: Topic 9.4%, sitewide 6.0%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 4.6%Unattributed Quote: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 1.1%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.0%False Dilemma: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 1.5%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 3.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.4%, sitewide 3.3%Slippery Slope: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 1.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Sunk Cost Effect: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 0.3%Recency Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos