Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Private Funding Of Public Services results contain 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 11.8% saturation with 276 hits. Analysis detected 2,565 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,343 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Private Funding Of Public Services is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Private Funding Of Public Services
Topic details
Total words: 2,343
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.3K 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 7.5%7.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 7.8%7.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 7.8%7.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.2%4.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.1%3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 7.3%7.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 5.2%5.2%

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 7.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 11.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 5.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 7.8%, sitewide 0.8%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Topic 7.4%, sitewide 5.2%Halo Effect: Topic 7.4%, sitewide 6.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 7.3%, sitewide 3.3%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.0%Begging the Question: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 1.7%Recency Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 2.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.9%Primacy Effect: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 0.9%False Dilemma: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos