Topic summary
⁠86%3 analyzed articles/videos1,822 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Presidential Finances results contain 39 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 18.1% saturation with 1,318 hits. Analysis detected 6,937 faulty-reasoning hits from 7,288 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (12,126 of 24,545 topics). This Presidential Finances is worse (more manipulative) than 50.60% of the peer group.
Presidential Finances

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

51% percentile
025507510050.6% percentile
2.4% BS Score3 analyzed articles7.3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.5%1.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 14.4%14.4%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 18.1%18.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.7%1.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 12.6%12.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.3%0.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.8%0.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%

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 18.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 12.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 14.4%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 5.9%, sitewide 3.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 3.6%, sitewide 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos