Topic summary
⁠18%5 analyzed articles/videos3,709 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Gambling Regulation results contain 40 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 4.8% saturation with 567 hits. Analysis detected 4,791 faulty-reasoning hits from 11,783 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 1% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (21,768 of 22,767 topics). This Gambling Regulation is better (less manipulative) than 95.60% of the peer group.
Gambling Regulation

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

4% percentile
02550751004.4% percentile
1.0% BS Score5 analyzed articles11.8K 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 3.3%3.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.8%4.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.2%1.2%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.4%0.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.8%0.8%

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 3.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos