Topic summary
⁠10%1 analyzed article/video256 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Social Security Administration results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Negativity Bias, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 8.2% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 221 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,024 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (8,633 of 24,545 topics). This Social Security Administration is worse (more manipulative) than 64.80% of the peer group.
Social Security Administration
Topic details
Total words: 1,024
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

65% percentile
025507510064.8% percentile
3.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles1K 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 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 8.2%8.2%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.9%0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 2.6%2.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Topic 1.5%1.5%

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 2.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 11.1%Pessimism Bias: Topic 8.2%, sitewide 1.9%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.6%, sitewide 0.8%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 1.1%Slippery Slope: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 1.7%Negativity BiasSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos