Speaker summary
58% 6 analyzed articles/videos 415.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget results contain 18 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias , Negativity Bias , and Loss Aversion , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 138.744 hits . Analysis detected 1,143.857 faulty-reasoning hits from 415.333 analyzed words across 6 articles, generating a BS Score of 10.8% and a BS Rank of 14% (24,653 of 28,364 speakers). This Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget is better (less manipulative) than 86.90% of the peer group. Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget
Speaker details
Total words: 415.333
Article count: 6
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed speakers
13% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 13.1% percentile 10.8% BS Score6 analyzed videos415.3 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% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Speaker 24.5% 24.5% Begging the Question Sitewide 1.7% Speaker 14.6% 14.6% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Speaker 18.9% 18.9% Loss Aversion Sitewide 2.5% Speaker 13.3% 13.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Speaker 13.5% 13.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Speaker 10.2% 10.2% Quote-first Misdirection Sitewide 0.0% Speaker 5.7% 5.7% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Speaker 10.2% 10.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Speaker 5.4% 5.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Speaker 13.7% 13.7% 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: Speaker 25.9%, sitewide 26.9% Anchoring Bias: Speaker 24.5%, sitewide 4.0% Negativity Bias: Speaker 13.5%, sitewide 19.2% Hasty Generalization: Speaker 18.9%, sitewide 8.1% Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 10.2%, sitewide 15.9% Begging the Question: Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 1.7% Availability Heuristic: Speaker 13.7%, sitewide 9.1% Loss Aversion: Speaker 13.3%, sitewide 2.5% Appeal to Authority: Speaker 12.8%, sitewide 11.1% Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 10.2%, sitewide 5.3% Confirmation Bias: Speaker 5.3%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 6.7% Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 5.7%, sitewide 0.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 5.4%, sitewide 0.8% Indoctrination: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 0.0% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 1.4% Primacy Effect: Speaker 3.8%, sitewide 0.9% Unattributed Quote: Speaker 3.7%, sitewide 1.1% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Speaker rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst