Topic summary
34% 14 analyzed articles/videos 8,560 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Wildlife Conservation results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority , Appeal to Emotion , and Indoctrination , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 6.2% saturation with 3,685 hits . Analysis detected 37,690 faulty-reasoning hits from 59,623 analyzed words across 14 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 5% (14,829 of 15,563 topics). This Wildlife Conservation is better (less manipulative) than 95.30% of the peer group. Wildlife Conservation
Topic details
Total words: 59,623
Article count: 14
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
5% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 4.7% percentile 1.4% BS Score14 analyzed articles59.6K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Topic 4.1% 4.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 6.2% 6.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 4.5% 4.5% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 2.4% 2.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 4.6% 4.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Topic 0.6% 0.6% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Topic 1.4% 1.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Topic 2.8% 2.8% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Topic 4.1% 4.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Topic 2.6% 2.6% 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 4.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 6.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.6%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Topic 3.9%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 4.6% Indoctrination: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 0.0% Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst