Keyword summary
⁠0%1 analyzed article/video764 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Manti La Sal National Forest results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Loss Aversion, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 440 hits. Analysis detected 1,689 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,056 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (22,264 of 37,536 keywords). This Manti La Sal National Forest is better (less manipulative) than 59.30% of the peer group.
Manti La Sal National Forest
Keyword ranking list
Keyword details
Total words: 3,056
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

41% percentile
025507510040.7% percentile
2.5% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.1K 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 1.0%1.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 7.3%7.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 1.6%1.6%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 0.4%0.4%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 3.4%3.4%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Keyword 0.4%0.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Keyword 1.1%1.1%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Keyword 1.9%1.9%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Keyword 0.4%0.4%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Keyword 6.0%6.0%

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 1.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 7.3%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 14.4%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 3.4%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Keyword 5.0%, sitewide 6.7%Loss Aversion: Keyword 6.0%, sitewide 2.5%Optimism Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 3.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 4.0%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 2.7%Appeal to Nature: Keyword 2.2%, sitewide 0.2%Status Quo Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Keyword 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%False Dilemma: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 1.5%Sunk Cost Effect: Keyword 1.2%, sitewide 0.3%Unattributed Quote: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 1.1%Blind-Spot Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos