Topic summary
⁠82%1 analyzed article/video1,571 analyzed words
BS Summary: These US Senate History results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 12.6% saturation with 592 hits. Analysis detected 5,148 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,713 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (6,903 of 16,562 topics). This US Senate History is worse (more manipulative) than 58.30% of the peer group.
US Senate History
Topic details
Total words: 4,713
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

58% percentile
025507510058.3% percentile
3.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.7K 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 4.9%4.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 10.3%10.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.9%2.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 8.2%8.2%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.4%1.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 12.3%12.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.8%2.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.3%2.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 12.6%12.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 6.5%6.5%

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 4.9%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 10.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 8.2%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Topic 12.6%, sitewide 8.1%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 12.3%, sitewide 5.3%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 7.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 7.1%, sitewide 3.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 6.7%Ad Hominem: Topic 6.5%, sitewide 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 5.3%, sitewide 3.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 5.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 1.1%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 2.7%Hindsight Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 1.4%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%False Dilemma: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 1.5%Burden of Proof: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.4%Indoctrination: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos