Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video2,116 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Salud Publica results contain 42 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 11% saturation with 932 hits. Analysis detected 5,924 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,464 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (14,504 of 16,562 topics). This Salud Publica is better (less manipulative) than 87.60% of the peer group.
Salud Publica
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠13%Salud Publica (selected)2%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 8,464
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

12% percentile
025507510012.4% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles8.5K 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 5.2%5.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.9%9.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 11.0%11.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.8%0.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.4%5.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.6%1.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.6%0.6%

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 5.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 11.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 11.0%, sitewide 3.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 7.5%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 2.0%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%False Dilemma: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos