Topic summary
⁠3%1 analyzed article/video284 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Drug Deal Gone Wrong results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 4.8% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 286 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,136 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,965 of 22,261 topics). This Drug Deal Gone Wrong is worse (more manipulative) than 50.70% of the peer group.
Drug Deal Gone Wrong
Topic details
Total words: 1,136
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

51% percentile
025507510050.7% percentile
2.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.1K 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 1.0%1.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 1.4%1.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.3%1.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.8%4.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 4.8%4.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 4.4%4.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 4.0%4.0%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 0.5%0.5%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Topic 2.4%2.4%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Topic 0.5%0.5%

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 1.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 5.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 4.8%, sitewide 0.8%Begging the Question: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 1.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Burden of Proof: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 0.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos