Topic summary
63%1 analyzed article/video3,373 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Wildlife Conservation Funding results contain 44 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 9.3% saturation with 940 hits. Analysis detected 7,894 faulty-reasoning hits from 10,119 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.8% and a BS Rank of 14% (10,494 of 12,186 topics). This Wildlife Conservation Funding is better (less manipulative) than 86.10% of the peer group.
Wildlife Conservation Funding
Topic details
Loading chart...
Attribute Prevalence (Top 48)
Wildlife Conservation Funding attribute prevalence percentages (biases/fallacies), sorted highest to lowest.
Loading chart...
Wildlife Conservation Funding vs sitewide
Wildlife Conservation Funding attribute percentages, with an overlaid sitewide baseline for those same attributes.