Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 1,706 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jerusalem Demsas results contain 38 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal , Appeal to Emotion , and Appeal to Authority , with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 10.4% saturation with 710 hits . Analysis detected 5,364 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,824 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.1% and a BS Rank of 33% (4,340 of 6,467 authors). This Jerusalem Demsas is better (less manipulative) than 67.10% of the peer group. Jerusalem Demsas
Author details
Total words: 6,824
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
33% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 32.9% percentile 2.1% BS Score1 analyzed articles6.8K 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 1.7% 1.7% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 3.8% 3.8% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.4% 6.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.1% 4.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.9% 0.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.3% 3.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.7% 1.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 3.2% 3.2% Indoctrination Sitewide 0.0% Author 4.0% 4.0% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 2.3% 2.3% 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% Framing Effect: Author 1.7%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 3.8%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.1%, sitewide 11.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 10.4%, sitewide 8.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.3%, sitewide 9.1% Anecdotal: Author 8.2%, sitewide 5.2% Confirmation Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.7%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 2.9%, sitewide 5.3% Overconfidence Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Indoctrination: Author 4.0%, sitewide 0.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.7%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.5%, sitewide 3.3% Hindsight Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 1.4% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.1% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst