Topic summary
⁠100%1 analyzed article/video386 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Presidential Nominees results contain 26 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 32.6% saturation with 378 hits. Analysis detected 2,958 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,158 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 9.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,340 of 16,562 topics). This Presidential Nominees is worse (more manipulative) than 91.90% of the peer group.
Presidential Nominees
Topic details
Total words: 1,158
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

92% percentile
025507510091.9% percentile
9.8% 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%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 26.7%26.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 22.2%22.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 22.4%22.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 26.0%26.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 15.4%15.4%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 8.8%8.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 25.2%25.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 32.6%32.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.6%3.6%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Topic 6.7%6.7%

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 32.6%, sitewide 26.9%Ad Hominem: Topic 26.7%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 26.0%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 25.2%, sitewide 19.2%Hasty Generalization: Topic 22.4%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 22.2%, sitewide 5.3%In-Group Bias: Topic 15.4%, sitewide 6.9%Confirmation Bias: Topic 12.6%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 9.1%Unattributed Quote: Topic 8.8%, sitewide 1.1%False Dilemma: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 2.0%Anecdotal: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 5.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 0.6%Bandwagon: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 3.1%Begging the Question: Topic 4.0%, sitewide 1.7%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 3.7%Recency Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.3%, sitewide 0.8%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos