Keyword summary
⁠0%2 analyzed articles/videos
BS Summary: These City Of Austin Planning Commission results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Loss Aversion, and Hasty Generalization, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6.6% saturation with 287 hits. Analysis detected 2,857 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,375 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 37,536 keywords). This City Of Austin Planning Commission is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
City Of Austin Planning Commission
Keyword ranking list
Keyword details
Total words: 4,375
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score2 analyzed articles4.4K 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 6.6%6.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 2.9%2.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 2.6%2.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 2.3%2.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 1.5%1.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Keyword 0.5%0.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 1.8%1.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 1.2%1.2%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 0.6%0.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 4.2%4.2%

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 6.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 2.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 4.2%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Keyword 1.2%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 6.0%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 5.7%, sitewide 2.2%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 5.3%Loss Aversion: Keyword 5.0%, sitewide 2.5%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 3.2%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.5%, sitewide 0.8%Bandwagon: Keyword 1.4%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Keyword 2.1%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos