Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These US Senate Hearings results contain 29 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.9% saturation with 778 hits. Analysis detected 2,402 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,726 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 16,562 topics). This US Senate Hearings is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
US Senate Hearings
Topic details
Total words: 3,726
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.7K 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 1.4%1.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.5%2.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.3%1.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.4%3.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.3%0.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.7%1.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 3.8%3.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.7%2.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 1.6%1.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 2.3%2.3%

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 1.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 20.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.3%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 1.7%Indoctrination: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos