Topic summary
⁠99%1 analyzed article/video116 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Stadium Food Pricing results contain 16 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 48.3% saturation with 168 hits. Analysis detected 882 faulty-reasoning hits from 348 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 15.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (467 of 16,562 topics). This Stadium Food Pricing is worse (more manipulative) than 97.20% of the peer group.
Stadium Food Pricing
Topic details
Total words: 348
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

97% percentile
025507510097.2% percentile
15.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles348 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 48.3%48.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 30.8%30.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 18.7%18.7%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Topic 11.2%11.2%Sunk Cost EffectSitewide 0.3%Topic 9.8%9.8%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Topic 11.2%11.2%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Topic 9.8%9.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 8.6%8.6%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Topic 9.8%9.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.7%3.7%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 48.3%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 30.8%, sitewide 3.3%Framing Effect: Topic 30.2%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 21.0%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 21.0%, sitewide 19.2%Hasty Generalization: Topic 18.7%, sitewide 8.1%False Dilemma: Topic 11.2%, sitewide 1.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 11.2%, sitewide 2.2%Begging the Question: Topic 9.8%, sitewide 1.7%Confirmation Bias: Topic 9.8%, sitewide 7.5%Loss Aversion: Topic 9.8%, sitewide 2.5%Sunk Cost Effect: Topic 9.8%, sitewide 0.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 9.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 8.6%, sitewide 0.8%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 4.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos