Topic summary
⁠93%1 analyzed article/video709 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Clean Energy Grants results contain 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 24% saturation with 511 hits. Analysis detected 3,206 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,127 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 5.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠80% (3,320 of 16,486 topics). This Clean Energy Grants is worse (more manipulative) than 79.90% of the peer group.
Clean Energy Grants
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠80%Clean Energy Grants (selected)6%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 2,127
Article count: 1
Authors
Loading chart...
Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)
Clean Energy Grants attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.
Loading chart...
Clean Energy Grants vs sitewide
Clean Energy Grants attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.

Analyzed articles and videos