Topic summary
⁠76%3 analyzed articles/videos2,228 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Terrorism Financing results contain 43 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 20.4% saturation with 2,204 hits. Analysis detected 16,379 faulty-reasoning hits from 10,804 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 3.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (6,583 of 16,562 topics). This Terrorism Financing is worse (more manipulative) than 60.30% of the peer group.
Terrorism Financing
Topic details
Total words: 10,804
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

60% percentile
025507510060.3% percentile
3.5% BS Score3 analyzed articles10.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 20.4%20.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 17.6%17.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.5%0.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.5%5.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.0%4.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.1%0.1%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Topic 5.3%5.3%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 3.6%3.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 3.4%3.4%

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 17.6%, sitewide 26.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 20.4%, sitewide 5.3%Negativity Bias: Topic 15.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 13.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 8.7%, sitewide 7.5%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.8%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 1.4%Anecdotal: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 4.0%Indoctrination: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.1%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 2.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.7%False Dilemma: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos