Topic summary
⁠95%2 analyzed articles/videos1,112 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Urban Forestry results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 20.5% saturation with 685 hits. Analysis detected 4,941 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,336 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 4.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠69% (5,246 of 16,559 topics). This Urban Forestry is worse (more manipulative) than 68.30% of the peer group.
Urban Forestry
Topic ranking list
Topic details
Total words: 3,336
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

68% percentile
025507510068.3% percentile
4.1% BS Score2 analyzed articles3.3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 20.5%20.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 14.1%14.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 6.6%6.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 10.2%10.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.0%6.0%Genetic FallacySitewide 1.4%Topic 5.9%5.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 11.7%11.7%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.7%0.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 3.0%3.0%

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 14.1%, sitewide 26.9%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 20.5%, sitewide 3.7%Negativity Bias: Topic 10.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Topic 11.7%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 11.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 9.3%, sitewide 6.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.3%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 6.0%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 2.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 5.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 3.1%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.6%Ad Hominem: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 2.2%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Special Pleading: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 0.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.5%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.7%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 0.6%Red Herring: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos