Topic summary
⁠28%2 analyzed articles/videos1,143 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Local Food Systems results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 6% saturation with 426 hits. Analysis detected 2,705 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,102 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠21% (19,401 of 24,545 topics). This Local Food Systems is better (less manipulative) than 79.00% of the peer group.
Local Food Systems
Topic details
Total words: 7,102
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

21% percentile
025507510021.0% percentile
1.5% BS Score2 analyzed articles7.1K 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 1.6%1.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.0%2.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.5%2.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 0.3%0.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.0%1.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.9%2.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.2%1.2%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.5%0.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%

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 1.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 5.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.9%Unattributed Quote: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 0.0%, sitewide 0.8%Indoctrination: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 0.0%Burden of Proof: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos