Topic summary
⁠14%2 analyzed articles/videos632 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tularemia results contain 12 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 5.1% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 598 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,528 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ⁠37% (14,679 of 23,003 topics). This Tularemia is better (less manipulative) than 63.80% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

36% percentile
025507510036.2% percentile
2.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles2.5K 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 0.4%0.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.2%3.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.8%4.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.2%0.2%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 5.1%5.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.0%1.0%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 2.4%2.4%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Topic 0.7%0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%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 0.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 9.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 5.3%Indoctrination: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 0.0%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 4.0%Recency Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 2.7%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.8%Red Herring: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos