Keyword summary
35% 2 analyzed articles/videos 718 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Politics results contain 30 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect , Appeal to Emotion , and Self-Serving Bias , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.5% saturation with 550 hits . Analysis detected 2,438 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,782 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.7% and a BS Rank of 15% (32,226 of 37,536 keywords). This Chicago Politics is better (less manipulative) than 85.90% of the peer group. Chicago Politics
Keyword details
Total words: 4,782
Article count: 2
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
14% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 14.1% percentile 1.7% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.8K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Keyword 6.4% 6.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 4.7% 4.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 2.2% 2.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 0.3% 0.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 11.5% 11.5% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Keyword 1.0% 1.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Keyword 0.1% 0.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Keyword 0.3% 0.3% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Keyword 0.8% 0.8% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Keyword 2.7% 2.7% 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 6.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 11.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 4.7%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 2.7%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 1.0%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 4.6% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 2.2% Unattributed Quote: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 1.1% Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst