Topic summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos3,180 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tax Increment Financing results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 9% saturation with 1,034 hits. Analysis detected 6,493 faulty-reasoning hits from 11,479 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (14,520 of 16,562 topics). This Tax Increment Financing is better (less manipulative) than 87.70% of the peer group.
Tax Increment Financing
Topic details
Total words: 11,479
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

12% percentile
025507510012.3% percentile
1.7% BS Score2 analyzed articles11.5K 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 4.5%4.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.6%4.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.4%2.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.9%0.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.6%0.6%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.4%0.4%

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 4.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 9.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 9.0%, sitewide 6.0%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Loss Aversion: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 2.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos