Topic summary
⁠43%1 analyzed article/video740 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Arts results contain 25 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 11.8% saturation with 349 hits. Analysis detected 2,170 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,960 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (8,401 of 16,562 topics). This Chicago Arts is better (less manipulative) than 50.70% of the peer group.
Chicago Arts
Topic ranking list
PercentileTopicBS Score
⁠0%Uber1%
⁠0%Pittsburgh Pirates1%
⁠0%Opera1%
⁠0%Holocaust1%
⁠0%Privacy Policy1%
⁠50%Chicago Arts (selected)3%
⁠100%Radio Roundup / Week In Review60%
⁠100%E-Bikes / Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%E Bikes Rad Power Bikes60%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence O'donnell69%
⁠100%The Last Word With Lawrence Odonnell69%
Topic details
Total words: 2,960
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

49% percentile
025507510049.3% percentile
2.9% BS Score1 analyzed articles3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

TopicSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Topic 5.5%5.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 1.2%1.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 4.2%4.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.1%1.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 2.3%2.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 6.0%6.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 11.8%11.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 4.8%4.8%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Topic 0.9%0.9%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 1.9%1.9%

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: Topic 5.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 4.2%, sitewide 15.9%Halo Effect: Topic 11.8%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Authority: Topic 6.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 4.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 7.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Topic 2.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 4.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 2.7%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 4.6%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 2.5%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 2.9%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Topic 3.1%, sitewide 2.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.7%Indoctrination: Topic 2.4%, sitewide 0.0%Bandwagon: Topic 2.0%, sitewide 2.2%Status Quo Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.2%Pessimism Bias: Topic 1.2%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Topic 1.2%, sitewide 0.8%Composition/Division: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 0.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos