Author summary
11% 1 analyzed article/video 699 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Elena Neale-Sacks results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause) , Appeal to Authority , and Anecdotal , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 5.3% saturation with 112 hits . Analysis detected 966 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,097 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of 34% (4,222 of 6,346 authors). This Elena Neale-Sacks is better (less manipulative) than 66.50% of the peer group. Elena Neale-Sacks
Author details
Total words: 2,097
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
34% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 33.5% percentile 2.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles2.1K 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% Author 5.3% 5.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.5% 1.5% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.8% 1.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.5% 2.5% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.8% 1.8% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 3.3% 3.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 1.6% 1.6% Status Quo Bias Sitewide 2.2% Author 0.4% 0.4% 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: Author 5.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.7%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.8%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.3%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 2.5%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 1.8%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.6%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 4.6%, sitewide 5.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.7%, sitewide 3.3% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.1%, sitewide 3.7% Recency Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Appeal to Nature: Author 2.0%, sitewide 0.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.7%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 1.9% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.6%, sitewide 0.8% False Dilemma: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.5% Indoctrination: Author 0.6%, sitewide 0.0% Composition/Division: Author 0.4%, sitewide 0.2% Quote-first Misdirection: Author 0.2%, sitewide 0.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst