Topic summary
⁠89%1 analyzed article/video546 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Supreme Court Nominations results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Halo Effect, and In-Group Bias, with Politically Right Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 419 hits. Analysis detected 3,732 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,184 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠74% (4,189 of 15,882 topics). This Supreme Court Nominations is worse (more manipulative) than 73.60% of the peer group.
Supreme Court Nominations
Topic details
Total words: 2,184
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

74% percentile
025507510073.6% percentile
4.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.2K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Topic 19.2%19.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 10.3%10.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 9.5%9.5%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Topic 9.5%9.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 15.3%15.3%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Topic 8.9%8.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.1%2.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 11.2%11.2%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Topic 5.2%5.2%

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 10.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 9.5%, sitewide 19.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 19.2%, sitewide 1.4%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 17.6%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Topic 15.3%, sitewide 6.7%In-Group Bias: Topic 11.2%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 11.1%Indoctrination: Topic 9.5%, sitewide 0.0%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 9.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 8.9%, sitewide 0.5%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 8.3%, sitewide 5.3%Hasty Generalization: Topic 8.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 4.3%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 5.2%False Dilemma: Topic 5.2%, sitewide 1.5%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 3.7%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 3.7%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.0%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.1%Straw Man: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 0.9%Ad Hominem: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 2.7%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos