Topic summary
⁠5%1 analyzed article/video242 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Senate Primary results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Special Pleading, and Status Quo Bias, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 6.6% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 310 faulty-reasoning hits from 968 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,511 of 22,018 topics). This Senate Primary is worse (more manipulative) than 75.00% of the peer group.
Senate Primary
Topic details
Total words: 968
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

75% percentile
025507510075.0% percentile
4.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles968 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 6.1%6.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.8%1.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 2.9%2.9%Special PleadingSitewide 0.3%Topic 4.2%4.2%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 3.3%3.3%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Topic 4.2%4.2%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Topic 2.9%2.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 6.6%6.6%

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 6.1%, sitewide 26.9%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Topic 6.6%, sitewide 6.9%Special Pleading: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 0.3%Status Quo Bias: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 3.3%, sitewide 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos