Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video939 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Utah 1st Congressional District results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Halo Effect, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 654 hits. Analysis detected 4,280 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,817 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 6.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (2,928 of 16,562 topics). This Utah 1st Congressional District is worse (more manipulative) than 82.30% of the peer group.
Utah 1st Congressional District
Topic details
Total words: 2,817
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

82% percentile
025507510082.3% percentile
6.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 23.2%23.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 3.1%3.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 6.7%6.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 1.8%1.8%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Topic 7.7%7.7%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 11.0%11.0%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Topic 6.2%6.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 22.6%22.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 7.7%7.7%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Topic 5.8%5.8%

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 22.6%, sitewide 26.9%In-Group Bias: Topic 23.2%, sitewide 6.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 6.7%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 8.9%, sitewide 11.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 11.0%, sitewide 6.0%Halo Effect: Topic 9.8%, sitewide 6.7%Availability Heuristic: Topic 7.1%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.9%, sitewide 8.1%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 7.7%, sitewide 3.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 7.7%, sitewide 2.2%Confirmation Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 7.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 6.2%, sitewide 1.9%Loss Aversion: Topic 5.8%, sitewide 2.5%Anecdotal: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 4.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 2.7%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 1.9%Bandwagon: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 2.2%Slippery Slope: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 1.7%Special Pleading: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 0.3%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos