If you could perform on any stage in Chicago, which one would you choose? Here's what you told us 13%

By Sun-Times staff17%

8/1/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 22% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 243 faulty-reasoning hits from 264 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.3% and a BS Rank of 13% (23,316 of 26,812 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

We asked readers to tell us which stage in Chicago they’d perform on if they could pick any one. 
Here’s what you told us, lightly edited for clarity: 
“Pritzker Pavilion. 
I watched it being built while learning to be a ‘musician.’ 
Many great performances I’ve witnessed on that stage.” 
 Daniel R. 
Shaughnessy 
“The Hideout, just to get one of those epic introductions.” 
 Darin Latimer 
“The United Center and the Lyric Opera, while others seek smaller venues, including some more obscure ones.” 
 Paul Lockwood 
“Huntington Bank Pavilion at Northerly Island  intimate, and the view!” 
 Topher Menard 
“Just east of the parking garage for the Cook County Courts along California Boulevard sits Plaza Garibaldi. 
I would perform at this stage to share a moment of joy and provide a small distraction for those awaiting trial and their families. 
Even if they couldn’t see the performance, they could at least hear the music.” 
 Luis Narvaez 
“The Aragon. 
So many great bands have played there over the years so it would be an honor for The Polkaholics to grace that stage.” 
 Don Hedeker 
“United Center for the main show. 
The Riv or Park West for the after-show jam.” 
 Dave Dreyfus 
“The Old Town School of Folk Music’s Mauer stage. 
One of the best rooms in town, and our band met there.” 
 Bob Cbecker 
“Second City with a stop after for a cheezborger at Billy Goat Tavern.” 
 Deborah Fuller Tobias 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Sun-Times staff: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 6.4%Sun-Times staff: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Sun-Times staff: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.0%Framing Effect5.3%This article: 5.3%Sun-Times staff: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.3%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.0%Sun-Times staff: 7.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Optimism Bias22.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Sun-Times staff: 5.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Halo Effect11.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.7%Sun-Times staff: 4.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Appeal to Authority8.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.7%Sun-Times staff: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Bandwagon8.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.7%Sun-Times staff: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.7%Sun-Times staff: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Unattributed Quote8.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times staff: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

264 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers7.2%attributed speech245writer words
Selected voice

Deborah Fuller Tobias

0%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words21% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-9.4 ptsWriter: 9.4%Deborah Fuller Tobias: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.