Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video1,427 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Congressional Stock Trading results contain 41 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 14.9% saturation with 851 hits. Analysis detected 5,348 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,708 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠33% (10,440 of 15,435 topics). This Congressional Stock Trading is better (less manipulative) than 67.60% of the peer group.
Congressional Stock Trading
Topic details
Total words: 5,708
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

32% percentile
025507510032.4% percentile
2.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles5.7K 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 5.4%5.4%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 14.9%14.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 12.0%12.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 9.3%9.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.5%0.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.0%1.0%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Topic 5.4%5.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.0%1.0%

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 5.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 12.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 9.3%, sitewide 15.9%Ad Hominem: Topic 14.9%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Authority: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 6.0%Tu Quoque: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 0.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.7%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.5%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 3.1%Indoctrination: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.0%Burden of Proof: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Straw Man: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 0.9%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos