Keyword summary
0%1 analyzed article/video
BS Summary: These Trump Save Act results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Burden of Proof, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.4% saturation with 415 hits. Analysis detected 3,129 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,404 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 37,536 keywords). This Trump Save Act is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the peer group.
Trump Save Act
Keyword ranking list
PercentileKeywordBS Score
0%Lieutenant Governor1%
0%Agriculture Commissioner1%
0%Texas Supreme Court1%
0%Tropic Care Of Florida1%
0%Running Back1%
100%Rad Power Bikes60%
100%Mike Lewis60%
100%Joni Balter60%
100%Lawrence O'donnell69%
100%Bondi Beach Shooting70%
0%Trump Save Act (selected)0%
Keyword details
Total words: 4,404
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed keywords

0% percentile
02550751000.0% percentile
0.0% BS Score1 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 6.3%6.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Keyword 0.3%0.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Keyword 9.4%9.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Keyword 7.7%7.7%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Keyword 1.8%1.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Keyword 1.8%1.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Keyword 1.8%1.8%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Keyword 5.3%5.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Keyword 0.9%0.9%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Keyword 3.9%3.9%

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 6.3%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Keyword 9.4%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 7.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Keyword 3.9%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 6.9%Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 5.3%Burden of Proof: Keyword 5.3%, sitewide 0.4%Overconfidence Bias: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 4.6%False Dilemma: Keyword 4.5%, sitewide 1.5%Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 4.0%Ad Hominem: Keyword 3.8%, sitewide 2.2%Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 1.4%, sitewide 3.7%Bandwagon: Keyword 2.8%, sitewide 2.2%Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Keyword 1.5%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Keyword 2.6%, sitewide 0.0%Loss Aversion: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 2.5%Begging the Question: Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 1.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Keyword 2.3%, sitewide 1.4%Pessimism Bias: Keyword 0.6%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 1.7%Framing EffectSitewide rateKeyword rate

Analyzed articles and videos