Keyword summary
74% 4 analyzed articles/videos 1,509 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Texas Senate Race results contain 38 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias , Overconfidence Bias , and Negativity Bias , with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 14.1% saturation with 1,133 hits . Analysis detected 7,862 faulty-reasoning hits from 8,025 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.6% and a BS Rank of 43% (21,588 of 37,536 keywords). This Texas Senate Race is better (less manipulative) than 57.50% of the peer group. Texas Senate Race
Keyword details
Total words: 8,025
Article count: 4
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
43% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 42.5% percentile 2.6% BS Score4 analyzed articles8K 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 6.0% 6.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 6.8% 6.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 0.7% 0.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 5.6% 5.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 1.6% 1.6% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Keyword 14.1% 14.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Keyword 0.8% 0.8% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Keyword 0.8% 0.8% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Keyword 9.3% 9.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Keyword 3.0% 3.0% 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 6.0%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 6.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 5.6%, sitewide 15.9% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 14.1%, sitewide 8.1% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 0.7%, sitewide 11.1% In-Group Bias: Keyword 9.5%, sitewide 6.9% Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 9.3%, sitewide 4.6% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 1.6%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 3.0%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 5.8%, sitewide 5.3% Ad Hominem: Keyword 5.4%, sitewide 2.2% Anecdotal: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Keyword 4.5%, sitewide 3.1% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 2.0%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 1.7%, sitewide 3.3% False Dilemma: Keyword 3.1%, sitewide 1.5% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 2.5% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst