Publication summary
⁠30%2 analyzed articles/videos1,566 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Air & Space Forces Magazine results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 6.3% saturation with 392 hits. Analysis detected 2,650 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,264 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (277 of 575 publications). This Air & Space Forces Magazine is worse (more manipulative) than 51.90% of the peer group.
Air & Space Forces Magazine
Publication ranking list
Publication details
Total words: 6,264
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed publications

52% percentile
025507510051.9% percentile
1.6% BS Score2 analyzed articles6.3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

PublicationSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Publication 4.6%4.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Publication 1.2%1.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Publication 6.3%6.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Publication 2.3%2.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Publication 0.9%0.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Publication 1.8%1.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Publication 5.0%5.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Publication 0.2%0.2%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Publication 0.3%0.3%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Publication 0.3%0.3%

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: Publication 4.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Publication 6.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Publication 5.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Publication 1.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Publication 6.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Publication 3.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 0.9%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 1.5%Hindsight Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 1.4%Unattributed Quote: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Publication 1.0%, sitewide 0.8%Circular Reasoning: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 0.1%Composition/Division: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide ratePublication rate

Analyzed articles and videos