Topic summary
48% 19 analyzed articles/videos 17,068 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Wildlife Conservation results contain 49 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Appeal to Authority , and Optimism Bias , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 5.7% saturation with 4,584 hits . Analysis detected 43,721 faulty-reasoning hits from 80,340 analyzed words across 19 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.1% and a BS Rank of 7% (21,262 of 22,650 topics). This Wildlife Conservation is better (less manipulative) than 93.90% of the peer group. Wildlife Conservation
Topic details
Total words: 80,340
Article count: 19
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
6% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 6.1% percentile 1.1% BS Score19 analyzed articles80.3K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Topic 3.6% 3.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 5.7% 5.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 3.7% 3.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 3.7% 3.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 2.0% 2.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Topic 0.5% 0.5% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Topic 1.3% 1.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Topic 2.6% 2.6% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Topic 2.1% 2.1% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Topic 0.4% 0.4% 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 3.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 5.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.7% Indoctrination: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 0.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst