Topic summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos
BS Summary: These Senate Confirmation Hearing results contain 33 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anecdotal, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 1,429 hits. Analysis detected 4,927 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,757 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This Senate Confirmation Hearing is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Senate Confirmation Hearing
Topic details
Total words: 5,757
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles5.8K 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 4.1%4.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.0%3.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.7%2.7%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.9%0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 24.8%24.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.2%1.2%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.4%1.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.0%3.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.1%1.1%

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 4.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 24.8%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.4%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 1.9%Recency Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos