Author summary
0% 1 analyzed article/video 1,250 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sarah Ewall-Wice results contain 34 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Framing Effect , and Hasty Generalization , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21% saturation with 1,051 hits . Analysis detected 5,047 faulty-reasoning hits from 5,000 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3% and a BS Rank of 59% (2,603 of 6,348 authors). This Sarah Ewall-Wice is worse (more manipulative) than 59.00% of the peer group. Sarah Ewall-Wice
Author details
Total words: 5,000
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
59% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 59.0% percentile 3.0% BS Score1 analyzed articles5K 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 10.6% 10.6% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.7% 4.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.1% 2.1% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.4% 1.4% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 12.7% 12.7% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.0% 1.0% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 1.0% 1.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 4.1% 4.1% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 1.1% 1.1% Red Herring Sitewide 0.7% Author 3.6% 3.6% 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 10.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 21.0%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.7%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Author 12.7%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.1%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.4%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 5.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 4.1%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 6.9% Anecdotal: Author 4.5%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 3.7% Red Herring: Author 3.6%, sitewide 0.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.3% Tu Quoque: Author 2.9%, sitewide 0.2% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Ad Hominem: Author 2.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.3%, sitewide 0.8% Bandwagon: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.0% Politically Right Leaning Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.4% Unattributed Quote: Author 2.0%, sitewide 1.1% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst