Topic summary
⁠64%1 analyzed article/video1,126 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Hemp Market results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Pessimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 10.4% saturation with 469 hits. Analysis detected 3,170 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,504 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (13,154 of 24,545 topics). This Hemp Market is better (less manipulative) than 53.60% of the peer group.
Hemp Market
Topic details
Total words: 4,504
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

46% percentile
025507510046.4% percentile
2.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.5K 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 5.2%5.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 10.4%10.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.3%2.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.8%1.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.8%2.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.3%1.3%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 5.6%5.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 4.9%4.9%

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 5.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 10.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 8.1%Anecdotal: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 5.2%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 6.0%Pessimism Bias: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 1.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.7%False Dilemma: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos