Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These US House Of Representatives Elections results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 5.1% saturation with 232 hits. Analysis detected 1,805 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,593 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This US House Of Representatives Elections is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
US House Of Representatives Elections
Topic details
Total words: 4,593
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.6K 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 4.6%4.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 5.0%5.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.7%2.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.6%0.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.1%1.1%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.5%0.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 0.7%0.7%

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 4.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 5.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 7.5%Halo Effect: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 0.5%Begging the Question: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 1.7%Horn Effect: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.0%False Dilemma: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.5%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos