Keyword summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video546 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Brigham Young University results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Post Hoc (False Cause), and Representativeness Heuristic, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 20.1% saturation with 329 hits. Analysis detected 1,672 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,638 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 4.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (10,080 of 34,644 keywords). This Brigham Young University is worse (more manipulative) than 70.90% of the peer group.
Brigham Young University
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
⁠0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
⁠0%Running Back1%
⁠0%Javian Hawkins1%
⁠0%Atlanta Falcons1%
⁠0%Anthony Romano1%
⁠71%Brigham Young University (selected)5%
⁠100%Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%Mike Lewis60%
⁠100%Joni Balter60%
⁠100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 1,638
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

71% percentile
025507510070.9% percentile
4.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.6K 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 2.9%2.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 3.6%3.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Keyword 15.9%15.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 1.4%1.4%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 20.1%20.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 0.8%0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Keyword 12.0%12.0%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Keyword 7.5%7.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 2.8%2.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 4.6%4.6%

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 2.9%, sitewide 26.9%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 20.1%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Keyword 3.6%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 1.4%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 15.9%, sitewide 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 12.0%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 4.6%, sitewide 9.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 2.8%, sitewide 7.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 7.5%, sitewide 1.9%In-Group Bias: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 6.9%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 3.8%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 3.7%, sitewide 4.6%Hindsight Bias: Keyword 4.2%, sitewide 1.4%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 4.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 2.2%Begging the Question: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 1.7%Composition/Division: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 0.6%Red Herring: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 0.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos