Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Nutrition Programs results contain 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Anchoring Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 7.9% saturation with 340 hits. Analysis detected 2,827 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,293 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 15,759 topics). This Nutrition Programs is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Nutrition Programs
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%Nutrition Programs (selected)0%
Topic details
Total words: 4,293
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K 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 3.6%3.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 7.9%7.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.4%5.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.3%1.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.4%4.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.0%2.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.3%3.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.5%1.5%

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 3.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 7.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 4.0%Anecdotal: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 4.6%False Dilemma: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.2%Indoctrination: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Straw Man: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos