Topic summary
56% 7 analyzed articles/videos 9,849 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Wildlife Protection results contain 50 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Framing Effect , and Hasty Generalization , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 7.4% saturation with 3,133 hits . Analysis detected 31,758 faulty-reasoning hits from 42,404 analyzed words across 7 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.5% and a BS Rank of 20% (18,951 of 23,425 topics). This Wildlife Protection is better (less manipulative) than 80.90% of the peer group. Wildlife Protection
Topic details
Total words: 42,404
Article count: 7
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
19% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 19.1% percentile 1.5% BS Score7 analyzed articles42.4K 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 6.9% 6.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 7.4% 7.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 7.2% 7.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 2.9% 2.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 3.3% 3.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Topic 1.4% 1.4% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Topic 2.3% 2.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Topic 2.4% 2.4% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Topic 2.0% 2.0% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Topic 0.6% 0.6% 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 6.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 7.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 7.2%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 3.3%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst