Topic summary
⁠23%4 analyzed articles/videos4,076 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Campaign Finance Reform results contain 47 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 6.5% saturation with 1,196 hits. Analysis detected 9,800 faulty-reasoning hits from 18,539 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠2% (15,525 of 15,785 topics). This Campaign Finance Reform is better (less manipulative) than 98.40% of the peer group.
Campaign Finance Reform
Topic details
Total words: 18,539
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

2% percentile
02550751001.6% percentile
1.1% BS Score4 analyzed articles18.5K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 3.0%3.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.7%4.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.4%4.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.6%1.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.4%0.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.4%0.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.9%1.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.7%0.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.4%1.4%

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 3.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.1%Ad Hominem: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.5%False Dilemma: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 1.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos