Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These St Louis Rams Settlement Money results contain 28 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Negativity Bias, and Begging the Question, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 14% saturation with 311 hits. Analysis detected 1,905 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,224 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This St Louis Rams Settlement Money is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
St Louis Rams Settlement Money
Topic details
Total words: 2,224
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 3.1%3.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.8%6.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.2%1.2%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 7.2%7.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.8%0.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 4.3%4.3%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Topic 4.5%4.5%Sunk Cost EffectSitewide 0.3%Topic 3.0%3.0%

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 3.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 14.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 7.5%Indoctrination: Topic 7.2%, sitewide 0.0%Halo Effect: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 5.2%Begging the Question: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 1.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 4.0%Loss Aversion: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.5%, sitewide 3.3%Sunk Cost Effect: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%Hindsight Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos