Keyword summary
ā 73% 1 analyzed article/video 1,207 analyzed words
BS Summary: These House Appropriations Committee results contain 33 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Confirmation Bias , and Appeal to Authority , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 10.3% saturation with 372 hits . Analysis detected 3,353 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,621 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.8% and a BS Rank of ā 49% (19,367 of 37,536 keywords). This House Appropriations Committee is better (less manipulative) than 51.60% of the peer group. House Appropriations Committee
Keyword details
Total words: 3,621
Article count: 1
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
48% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 48.4% percentile 2.8% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.6K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0ā50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Keyword 9.6% 9.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 6.4% 6.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 10.3% 10.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Keyword 0.4% 0.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Keyword 1.3% 1.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Keyword 3.1% 3.1% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Keyword 0.3% 0.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 4.7% 4.7% False Dilemma Sitewide 1.5% Keyword 5.8% 5.8% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Keyword 0.9% 0.9% 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: Keyword 9.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 10.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 6.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 7.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 4.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 8.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 6.0% False Dilemma: Keyword 5.8%, sitewide 1.5% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 5.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 4.8%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 2.8%, sitewide 4.0% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 2.5% Burden of Proof: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 0.4% Bandwagon: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 1.7% Pessimism Bias: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst