Topic summary
⁠10%1 analyzed article/video71 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Medical Examiner Ruling results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.2% saturation with 46 hits. Analysis detected 155 faulty-reasoning hits from 284 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 7.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (2,008 of 24,545 topics). This Medical Examiner Ruling is worse (more manipulative) than 91.80% of the peer group.
Medical Examiner Ruling
Topic details
Total words: 284
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

92% percentile
025507510091.8% percentile
7.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles284 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 9.5%9.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.2%4.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 11.3%11.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 16.2%16.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.2%4.2%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 4.9%4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 4.2%4.2%

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 9.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 16.2%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 11.3%, sitewide 5.3%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 4.2%, sitewide 3.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos