Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video390 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Legislative Ethics results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Anecdotal, and Negativity Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 25.6% saturation with 301 hits. Analysis detected 2,060 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,177 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (2,512 of 16,562 topics). This Legislative Ethics is worse (more manipulative) than 84.80% of the peer group.
Legislative Ethics
Topic details
Total words: 1,177
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

85% percentile
025507510084.8% percentile
6.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 23.4%23.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 25.6%25.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 10.7%10.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 19.4%19.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 5.4%5.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 15.7%15.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 1.5%1.5%Actor-Observer BiasSitewide 0.6%Topic 6.5%6.5%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Topic 7.7%7.7%Special PleadingSitewide 0.3%Topic 4.3%4.3%

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 10.7%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Topic 25.6%, sitewide 6.7%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 23.4%, sitewide 3.7%Anecdotal: Topic 19.4%, sitewide 5.2%Negativity Bias: Topic 16.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Topic 15.7%, sitewide 6.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 8.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 7.7%, sitewide 3.1%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 0.6%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 6.0%Recency Bias: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 2.7%Horn Effect: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 1.0%Special Pleading: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 0.3%Genetic Fallacy: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 1.4%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.2%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.7%Appeal to Nature: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.2%Bandwagon: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.2%Primacy Effect: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.9%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.8%False Dilemma: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos