Topic summary
⁠17%1 analyzed article/video264 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Venues results contain 12 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 7.8% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 344 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,056 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (10,082 of 22,940 topics). This Chicago Venues is worse (more manipulative) than 56.10% of the peer group.
Chicago Venues
Topic details
Total words: 1,056
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed topics

56% percentile
025507510056.1% percentile
2.7% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.1K 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 1.3%1.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Topic 1.9%1.9%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Topic 0.8%0.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Topic 4.4%4.4%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Topic 1.1%1.1%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Topic 2.9%2.9%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Topic 7.8%7.8%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Topic 5.1%5.1%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Topic 1.3%1.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Topic 2.2%2.2%

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: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Authority: Topic 4.4%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Topic 1.9%, sitewide 9.1%Optimism Bias: Topic 7.8%, sitewide 6.0%Confirmation Bias: Topic 0.8%, sitewide 7.5%In-Group Bias: Topic 1.1%, sitewide 6.9%Halo Effect: Topic 5.1%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Topic 2.9%, sitewide 5.2%Loss Aversion: Topic 1.3%, sitewide 2.5%Bandwagon: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 2.2%Unattributed Quote: Topic 2.2%, sitewide 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic: Topic 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Framing EffectSitewide rateTopic rate

Analyzed articles and videos