Author summary
78% 1 analyzed article/video 1,098 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Alison Hurley results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Anecdotal , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 853 hits . Analysis detected 3,312 faulty-reasoning hits from 3,294 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.2% and a BS Rank of 64% (2,296 of 6,359 authors). This Alison Hurley is worse (more manipulative) than 63.90% of the peer group. Alison Hurley
Author details
Total words: 3,294
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
64% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 63.9% percentile 3.2% BS Score1 analyzed articles3.3K 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% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 25.9% 25.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.5% 1.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 8.3% 8.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 12.2% 12.2% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.7% 0.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.5% 1.5% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 5.4% 5.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.2% 3.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.3% 0.3% 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% Halo Effect: Author 25.9%, sitewide 6.7% Negativity Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 8.3%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 12.2%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Author 5.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 4.7%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.2%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 7.5% Anecdotal: Author 7.4%, sitewide 5.2% In-Group Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.0% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 3.8%, sitewide 3.3% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 3.7% Indoctrination: Author 3.5%, sitewide 0.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 3.2%, sitewide 0.8% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.7%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.7% Bandwagon: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 1.3%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.5% Halo Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst