Topic summary
⁠4%1 analyzed article/video1,450 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Health Care Affordability results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Anchoring Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 2.9% saturation with 166 hits. Analysis detected 1,288 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,800 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠3% (21,315 of 21,884 topics). This Health Care Affordability is better (less manipulative) than 97.40% of the peer group.
Health Care Affordability
Topic details
Total words: 5,800
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

3% percentile
02550751002.6% percentile
0.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.8K 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 0.6%0.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 1.1%1.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.4%1.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.9%2.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.1%0.1%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.0%1.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.4%0.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.8%0.8%

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 0.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 4.0%Loss Aversion: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.5%Hindsight Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.2%, sitewide 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 0.5%Middle Ground: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos