Topic summary
⁠62%1 analyzed article/video1,068 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Senate Election results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Anecdotal, and Ad Hominem, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 12% saturation with 514 hits. Analysis detected 3,663 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,272 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (12,091 of 23,471 topics). This Senate Election is better (less manipulative) than 51.50% of the peer group.
Senate Election
Topic details
Total words: 4,272
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

49% percentile
025507510048.5% percentile
2.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K 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 5.2%5.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 2.5%2.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 0.6%0.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.4%2.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.1%2.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 12.0%12.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.6%1.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 5.4%5.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 1.6%1.6%

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 5.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 12.0%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 6.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 6.9%Anecdotal: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 5.2%Halo Effect: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 6.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 2.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 5.3%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.7%Bandwagon: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.1%, sitewide 3.3%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 1.4%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos