Topic summary
⁠0%4 analyzed articles/videos2,845 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Maine Senate Race results contain 45 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 10.7% saturation with 1,214 hits. Analysis detected 10,637 faulty-reasoning hits from 11,380 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (11,536 of 15,397 topics). This Maine Senate Race is better (less manipulative) than 74.90% of the peer group.
Maine Senate Race
Topic details
Total words: 11,380
Article count: 4
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

25% percentile
025507510025.1% percentile
2.1% BS Score4 analyzed articles11.4K 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 10.7%10.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 10.1%10.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 7.0%7.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.1%3.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.1%0.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.8%2.8%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.7%0.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.3%2.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.3%2.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%

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%Negativity Bias: Topic 10.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 7.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 7.6%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.7%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 3.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 2.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 2.2%Indoctrination: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 0.0%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.5%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 1.1%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos