Topic summary
⁠6%1 analyzed article/video884 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Religious Figures results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 4.3% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 532 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,652 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (13,445 of 24,545 topics). This Religious Figures is better (less manipulative) than 54.80% of the peer group.
Religious Figures
Topic details
Total words: 2,652
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

45% percentile
025507510045.2% percentile
2.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.7K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.3%4.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.0%4.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.7%1.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.5%0.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.1%4.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.1%1.1%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 3.4%3.4%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 11.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.6%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 2.2%Horn Effect: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 0.0%Negativity BiasSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos