Topic summary
⁠81%1 analyzed article/video845 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Congressional Hearing results contain 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 384 hits. Analysis detected 1,990 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,535 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (5,632 of 16,562 topics). This Congressional Hearing is worse (more manipulative) than 66.00% of the peer group.
Congressional Hearing
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠66%Congressional Hearing (selected)4%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 2,535
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

66% percentile
025507510066.0% percentile
3.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.5K 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 3.4%3.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 11.7%11.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.6%1.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 3.1%3.1%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 2.8%2.8%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Topic 3.8%3.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 2.4%2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Topic 1.4%1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Topic 2.2%2.2%

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 3.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 11.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 15.2%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 7.7%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 6.7%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 3.7%Hindsight Bias: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.4%, sitewide 3.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 2.0%Indoctrination: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 0.0%Recency Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.2%, sitewide 0.8%Personal Incredulity: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 0.2%Burden of Proof: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos