Topic summary
86% 11 analyzed articles/videos 3,927 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Congressional Races results contain 50 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem , Negativity Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6.9% saturation with 2,391 hits . Analysis detected 19,879 faulty-reasoning hits from 34,862 analyzed words across 11 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.1% and a BS Rank of 8% (22,674 of 24,545 topics). This Congressional Races is better (less manipulative) than 92.40% of the peer group. Congressional Races
Topic details
Total words: 34,862
Article count: 11
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed topics
8% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 7.6% percentile 1.1% BS Score11 analyzed articles34.9K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Topic 6.9% 6.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Topic 5.4% 5.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Topic 4.5% 4.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Topic 2.7% 2.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Topic 1.9% 1.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Topic 0.6% 0.6% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Topic 1.3% 1.3% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Topic 0.8% 0.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Topic 2.9% 2.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Topic 2.5% 2.5% 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 6.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Topic 5.4%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 6.0% Ad Hominem: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 2.2% Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Topic 0.1%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Topic 1.4%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Topic rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst