Topic summary
⁠24%1 analyzed article/video971 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Political Candidacy results contain 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Halo Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 4.5% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 1,477 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,884 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (17,165 of 22,683 topics). This Political Candidacy is better (less manipulative) than 75.70% of the peer group.
Political Candidacy
Topic details
Total words: 3,884
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

24% percentile
025507510024.3% percentile
1.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.9K 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 2.0%2.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 3.5%3.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.5%4.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.8%0.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 2.5%2.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.9%0.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.6%1.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Topic 0.4%0.4%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 3.8%3.8%

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 2.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 3.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.5%, sitewide 15.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Topic 3.8%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 3.4%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 1.9%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.8%, sitewide 0.8%False Dilemma: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.5%Red Herring: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 0.7%Composition/Division: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 0.2%Indoctrination: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection: Topic 0.2%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos