Topic summary
⁠95%2 analyzed articles/videos1,570 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Food Stamps results contain 44 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 976 hits. Analysis detected 8,396 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,280 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (8,822 of 24,545 topics). This Food Stamps is worse (more manipulative) than 64.10% of the peer group.
Food Stamps
Topic details
Total words: 6,280
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

64% percentile
025507510064.1% percentile
3.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles6.3K 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 9.4%9.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 15.5%15.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.2%11.2%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 7.0%7.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 9.6%9.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.7%0.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 5.1%5.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.6%1.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 5.9%5.9%

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 9.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 9.6%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 15.5%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 7.5%, sitewide 3.3%Indoctrination: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 0.0%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 6.2%, sitewide 1.4%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 6.0%Unattributed Quote: Topic 5.9%, sitewide 1.1%Anecdotal: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.5%Straw Man: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos