Keyword summary
57%1 analyzed article/video966 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Army Vet results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 9.9% saturation with 288 hits. Analysis detected 2,065 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,898 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of 53% (17,031 of 35,650 keywords). This Army Vet is worse (more manipulative) than 52.20% of the peer group.
Army Vet
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
0%Running Back1%
0%Javian Hawkins1%
0%Atlanta Falcons1%
0%Anthony Romano1%
53%Army Vet (selected)3%
100%Rad Power Bikes60%
100%Mike Lewis60%
100%Joni Balter60%
100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 2,898
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

52% percentile
025507510052.2% percentile
3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.9K 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 6.1%6.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 6.5%6.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 5.9%5.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 1.1%1.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 0.9%0.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Keyword 0.7%0.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 1.0%1.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 5.3%5.3%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Keyword 9.9%9.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 8.6%8.6%

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: Keyword 6.1%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 6.5%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 5.9%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 8.6%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Keyword 9.9%, sitewide 6.7%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 5.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 6.0%Anecdotal: Keyword 5.9%, sitewide 5.2%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 3.8%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.7%, sitewide 3.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.5%Ad Hominem: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 2.0%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 1.7%, sitewide 1.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 0.8%Primacy Effect: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 0.9%Red Herring: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 0.7%Burden of Proof: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos