Topic summary
⁠45%1 analyzed article/video2,468 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Mayoral Election results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 7.7% saturation with 761 hits. Analysis detected 3,948 faulty-reasoning hits from 9,872 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠10% (20,277 of 22,421 topics). This Chicago Mayoral Election is better (less manipulative) than 90.40% of the peer group.
Chicago Mayoral Election
Topic details
Total words: 9,872
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

10% percentile
02550751009.6% percentile
1.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles9.9K 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 7.6%7.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Topic 0.9%0.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Topic 4.9%4.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 2.6%2.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.7%1.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.3%0.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Topic 0.9%0.9%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 0.5%0.5%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Topic 0.3%0.3%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 1.1%1.1%

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 7.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Topic 4.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 2.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.7%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Topic 7.7%, sitewide 6.7%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 0.5%, sitewide 6.9%Optimism Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.0%Biased Writer Voice: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 5.2%Overconfidence Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Topic 0.4%, sitewide 4.0%Self-Serving Bias: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause): Topic 0.8%, sitewide 3.3%Fundamental Attribution Error: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Topic 0.9%, sitewide 2.7%Bandwagon: Topic 0.6%, sitewide 2.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.0%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.9%Begging the Question: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 1.7%False Dilemma: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Topic 0.3%, sitewide 1.4%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos