Keyword summary
28% 3 analyzed articles/videos 1,924 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Park District results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Availability Heuristic , and Appeal to Emotion , with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 8.8% saturation with 853 hits . Analysis detected 4,232 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,666 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 13% (45,424 of 51,715 keywords). This Chicago Park District is better (less manipulative) than 87.80% of the peer group. Chicago Park District
Keyword details
Total words: 9,666
Article count: 3
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed keywords
12% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 12.2% percentile 1.4% BS Score3 analyzed articles9.7K 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 2.2% 2.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Keyword 5.7% 5.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Keyword 2.8% 2.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Keyword 1.1% 1.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Keyword 0.2% 0.2% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Keyword 1.3% 1.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Keyword 1.9% 1.9% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Keyword 0.8% 0.8% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Keyword 3.6% 3.6% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Keyword 1.2% 1.2% 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 2.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Keyword 5.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Keyword 2.8%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Keyword 3.6%, sitewide 9.1% Anecdotal: Keyword 8.8%, sitewide 5.2% Hasty Generalization: Keyword 1.9%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Keyword 0.2%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Keyword 0.8%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Keyword 1.2%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Keyword 1.8%, sitewide 5.3% Anchoring Bias: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Keyword 2.4%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Keyword 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Keyword 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Keyword 1.1%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Keyword 1.2%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Keyword 1.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Keyword 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Keyword 0.4%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Keyword 0.3%, sitewide 1.7% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Keyword rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst