Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video686 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Trump Legal Cases results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 72.8% saturation with 1,498 hits. Analysis detected 5,649 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,058 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 11% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,057 of 16,562 topics). This Trump Legal Cases is worse (more manipulative) than 93.60% of the peer group.
Trump Legal Cases
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 2,058
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

94% percentile
025507510093.6% percentile
11.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.1K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 72.8%72.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 43.8%43.8%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Topic 15.6%15.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 31.1%31.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 25.3%25.3%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Topic 8.0%8.0%Genetic FallacySitewide 1.4%Topic 6.1%6.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Topic 5.6%5.6%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Topic 4.0%4.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Framing Effect: Topic 72.8%, sitewide 26.9%Confirmation Bias: Topic 43.8%, sitewide 7.5%Negativity Bias: Topic 31.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 25.3%, sitewide 15.9%Begging the Question: Topic 15.6%, sitewide 1.7%Appeal to Authority: Topic 10.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 8.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 8.1%Hindsight Bias: Topic 8.0%, sitewide 1.4%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 4.0%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 3.1%Bandwagon: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 2.2%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.6%, sitewide 3.3%Straw Man: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 0.9%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.7%False Dilemma: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.5%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 1.9%Personal Incredulity: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos