Topic summary
⁠28%1 analyzed article/video603 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Pullman National Historical Park results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Anecdotal, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 8.6% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 1,126 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,809 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (8,783 of 16,562 topics). This Pullman National Historical Park is better (less manipulative) than 53.00% of the peer group.
Pullman National Historical Park
Topic details
Total words: 1,809
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

47% percentile
025507510047.0% percentile
2.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.8K 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 1.2%1.2%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.8%1.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 8.6%8.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.2%1.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.8%0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 8.4%8.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.3%4.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 3.5%3.5%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 3.0%3.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 2.8%2.8%

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 1.2%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 8.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 9.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 8.4%, sitewide 3.3%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 5.2%Optimism Bias: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 4.6%Indoctrination: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.8%False Dilemma: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to Nature: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 0.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos