Topic summary
⁠46%2 analyzed articles/videos1,179 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Food Safety Regulations results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Hasty Generalization, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.4% saturation with 630 hits. Analysis detected 3,070 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,716 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (14,846 of 24,545 topics). This Food Safety Regulations is better (less manipulative) than 60.50% of the peer group.
Food Safety Regulations
Topic details
Total words: 4,716
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

40% percentile
025507510039.5% percentile
2.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.7K 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 5.4%5.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.8%1.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.5%0.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.2%3.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 13.4%13.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.6%1.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.4%6.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.8%0.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.3%0.3%

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 5.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 13.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.5%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Slippery Slope: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.8%Hindsight Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.4%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.1%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos