Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video5,208 analyzed words
BS Summary: These San Francisco Earthquake And Fire results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 4.1% saturation with 854 hits. Analysis detected 7,245 faulty-reasoning hits from 20,832 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠2% (16,323 of 16,562 topics). This San Francisco Earthquake And Fire is better (less manipulative) than 98.60% of the peer group.
San Francisco Earthquake And Fire
Topic details
Total words: 20,832
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

1% percentile
02550751001.4% percentile
1.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles20.8K 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 1.5%1.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.2%2.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.7%0.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.8%1.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.9%1.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.1%4.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.8%0.8%

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 1.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.0%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.5%Hindsight Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.4%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos