Topic summary
⁠0%3 analyzed articles/videos926 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Presidential Finances results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 17.3% saturation with 1,106 hits. Analysis detected 6,410 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,392 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (9,165 of 15,361 topics). This Presidential Finances is better (less manipulative) than 59.70% of the peer group.
Presidential Finances

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

40% percentile
025507510040.3% percentile
2.6% BS Score3 analyzed articles6.4K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.7%1.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 17.3%17.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.2%2.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 13.3%13.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.0%2.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.3%0.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 14.4%14.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.0%4.0%

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 17.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 14.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 13.3%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 6.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 5.8%, sitewide 3.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 4.2%, sitewide 0.8%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos