Author summary
55% 24 analyzed articles/videos 12,891 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sarah Fentem results contain 52 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Appeal to Emotion , and Appeal to Authority , with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 6.5% saturation with 3,823 hits . Analysis detected 43,468 faulty-reasoning hits from 59,053 analyzed words across 24 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 10% (5,564 of 6,140 authors). This Sarah Fentem is better (less manipulative) than 90.60% of the peer group. Sarah Fentem
Author details
Total words: 59,053
Article count: 24
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
9% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 9.4% percentile 1.4% BS Score24 analyzed articles59.1K 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 6.5% 6.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 6.0% 6.0% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.0% 6.0% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.7% 4.7% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.1% 3.1% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 2.0% 2.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.4% 1.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.3% 3.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.3% 2.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 1.1% 1.1% 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 6.5%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 6.0%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.7%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 2.3%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 4.2%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.1%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 3.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.0%, sitewide 3.3% Indoctrination: Author 3.2%, sitewide 0.0% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst