Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These San Francisco Giants results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with False Dilemma as the most egregious example at 8.4% saturation with 182 hits. Analysis detected 1,130 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,164 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This San Francisco Giants is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
San Francisco Giants
Topic details
Total words: 2,164
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.2K 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 4.2%4.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.1%3.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.5%1.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.6%0.6%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Topic 8.4%8.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.5%1.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.5%1.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.8%1.8%

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 4.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 11.1%False Dilemma: Topic 8.4%, sitewide 1.5%Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Begging the Question: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 1.7%Indoctrination: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.0%Appeal to Nature: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 0.0%Middle Ground: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 0.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.2%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos