Topic summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Election Forecasts results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, In-Group Bias, and Framing Effect, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 5.1% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 174 faulty-reasoning hits from 866 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 24,545 topics). This Election Forecasts is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Election Forecasts
Topic details
Total words: 866
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles866 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 2.2%2.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 2.1%2.1%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 2.2%2.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 2.8%2.8%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Topic 4.2%4.2%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Topic 5.1%5.1%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Topic 1.6%1.6%

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 2.2%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 2.1%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Topic 2.8%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 6.7%Anchoring Bias: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 4.0%Ad Hominem: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos