Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Princess Lilibet results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 671 hits. Analysis detected 3,456 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,072 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Princess Lilibet is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Princess Lilibet
Topic details
Total words: 3,072
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.1K 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 6.9%6.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 1.3%1.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 21.8%21.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 6.8%6.8%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Topic 7.4%7.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 7.3%7.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 12.4%12.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 5.9%5.9%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 6.9%, sitewide 26.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 21.8%, sitewide 5.3%Negativity Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Topic 12.4%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 7.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 7.4%, sitewide 0.5%Unattributed Quote: Topic 7.3%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 5.9%, sitewide 0.8%Anecdotal: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.2%, sitewide 3.3%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 4.0%Recency Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 2.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 1.9%Burden of Proof: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 0.3%Indoctrination: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos