Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Congressional Intelligence Committee results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Overconfidence Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.1% saturation with 562 hits. Analysis detected 3,593 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,790 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Congressional Intelligence Committee is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Congressional Intelligence Committee
Topic details
Total words: 2,790
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.8K 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%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 8.1%8.1%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Topic 8.1%8.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 5.3%5.3%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 7.1%7.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.3%0.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.5%3.5%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 6.7%6.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.3%1.3%

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 20.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 8.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 13.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 9.1%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 8.6%, sitewide 4.6%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 8.1%Burden of Proof: Topic 8.1%, sitewide 0.4%Confirmation Bias: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 7.5%Pessimism Bias: Topic 7.1%, sitewide 1.9%Ad Hominem: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 2.2%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 2.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 5.3%Indoctrination: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 0.0%Anecdotal: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.2%, sitewide 2.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.5%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Tu Quoque: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos