Keyword summary
⁠29%3 analyzed articles/videos2,085 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Fort Worth results contain 45 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 5.1% saturation with 951 hits. Analysis detected 13,368 faulty-reasoning hits from 18,751 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠11% (33,522 of 37,536 keywords). This Fort Worth is better (less manipulative) than 89.30% of the peer group.
Fort Worth
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
⁠0%Lieutenant Governor1%
⁠0%Agriculture Commissioner1%
⁠0%Texas Supreme Court1%
⁠0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
⁠0%Running Back1%
⁠11%Fort Worth (selected)2%
⁠100%Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%Mike Lewis60%
⁠100%Joni Balter60%
⁠100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
Keyword details
Total words: 18,751
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

11% percentile
025507510010.7% percentile
1.6% BS Score3 analyzed articles18.8K 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 4.4%4.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 2.3%2.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 3.8%3.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 5.1%5.1%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 3.3%3.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 3.1%3.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 3.5%3.5%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Keyword 0.5%0.5%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Keyword 1.9%1.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 2.8%2.8%

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 4.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 3.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 5.1%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 3.5%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Keyword 4.4%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Keyword 4.5%, sitewide 6.7%Optimism Bias: Keyword 5.0%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 2.8%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 3.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 0.8%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos