Keyword summary
0%3 analyzed articles/videos2,537 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amil Niazi results contain 38 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 8.7% saturation with 879 hits. Analysis detected 7,946 faulty-reasoning hits from 10,148 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of 27% (27,553 of 37,536 keywords). This Amil Niazi is better (less manipulative) than 73.40% of the peer group.
Amil Niazi
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
0%Lieutenant Governor1%
0%Agriculture Commissioner1%
0%Texas Supreme Court1%
0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
0%Running Back1%
27%Amil Niazi (selected)3%
100%Rad Power Bikes60%
100%Mike Lewis60%
100%Joni Balter60%
100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 10,148
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

27% percentile
025507510026.6% percentile
2.1% BS Score3 analyzed articles10.1K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

KeywordSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Keyword 2.4%2.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 4.0%4.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 5.6%5.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 5.0%5.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 1.9%1.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 1.3%1.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 3.7%3.7%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Keyword 0.6%0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product…Sitewide 0.5%Keyword 4.3%4.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 2.0%2.0%

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: Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 4.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 5.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 5.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 3.7%, sitewide 9.1%Halo Effect: Keyword 8.7%, sitewide 6.7%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 8.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 4.4%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Keyword 4.3%, sitewide 0.5%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 1.7%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Keyword 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 2.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos