Topic summary
⁠77%2 analyzed articles/videos1,092 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Georgia Senate Race results contain 36 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ad Hominem, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 673 hits. Analysis detected 3,591 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,368 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (13,053 of 24,545 topics). This Georgia Senate Race is better (less manipulative) than 53.20% of the peer group.
Georgia Senate Race
Topic details
Total words: 4,368
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

47% percentile
025507510046.8% percentile
2.3% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.4K 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 7.7%7.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 1.5%1.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 3.0%3.0%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 0.5%0.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 3.6%3.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 1.6%1.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.9%1.9%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.3%0.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 3.3%3.3%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.3%1.3%

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 7.7%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 15.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 1.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 3.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 3.6%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 5.3%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 5.6%, sitewide 2.2%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 3.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 4.0%Burden of Proof: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 0.4%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.6%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos