Topic summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos1,781 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Toronto results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 6.4% saturation with 458 hits. Analysis detected 4,460 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,124 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠11% (14,801 of 16,562 topics). This Toronto is better (less manipulative) than 89.40% of the peer group.
Toronto
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 7,124
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

11% percentile
025507510010.6% percentile
1.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles7.1K 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 5.9%5.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.2%2.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.4%6.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.9%1.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.4%1.4%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.3%0.3%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.1%1.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.9%1.9%

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 5.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.9%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.9%, sitewide 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos