Topic summary
⁠3%1 analyzed article/video406 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Payment Schedules results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Status Quo Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 3.8% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 215 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,624 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (17,334 of 23,012 topics). This Payment Schedules is better (less manipulative) than 75.30% of the peer group.
Payment Schedules
Topic details
Total words: 1,624
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

25% percentile
025507510024.7% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.6K 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%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.6%0.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.7%0.7%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.3%1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 1.5%1.5%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Topic 2.0%2.0%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 4.6%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.5%, sitewide 3.3%Status Quo Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos