Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Veterans Advocacy results contain 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6.5% saturation with 311 hits. Analysis detected 1,094 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,792 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 24,545 topics). This Veterans Advocacy is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Veterans Advocacy
Topic details
Total words: 4,792
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.8K 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 6.5%6.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.9%2.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.9%4.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 0.3%0.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.4%0.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.0%2.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.6%2.6%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Topic 0.2%0.2%

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 6.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.9%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Begging the Question: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos