Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video580 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Nyc Plan results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 64.2% saturation with 1,117 hits. Analysis detected 3,430 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,740 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 7.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,228 of 16,562 topics). This Nyc Plan is worse (more manipulative) than 86.60% of the peer group.
Nyc Plan
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 1,740
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

87% percentile
025507510086.6% percentile
7.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 64.2%64.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 25.6%25.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.8%1.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.9%4.9%Special PleadingSitewide 0.3%Topic 5.3%5.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.8%1.8%Red HerringSitewide 0.7%Topic 5.5%5.5%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Topic 5.1%5.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.7%1.7%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Framing Effect: Topic 64.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 25.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 15.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 11.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 9.3%, sitewide 6.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 6.4%, sitewide 4.0%Optimism Bias: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 6.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 2.7%Red Herring: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 0.7%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 3.7%Special Pleading: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 0.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.2%Horn Effect: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 1.0%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 4.6%Ad Hominem: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 2.2%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 1.4%Recency Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.7%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 0.6%False Dilemma: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.5%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos