Author summary
24% 3 analyzed articles/videos 7,948 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The Marshall Project results contain 44 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion , Anecdotal , and Appeal to Authority , with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 11.9% saturation with 3,778 hits . Analysis detected 14,074 faulty-reasoning hits from 31,792 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1% and a BS Rank of 6% (8,158 of 8,598 authors). This The Marshall Project is better (less manipulative) than 94.90% of the peer group. The Marshall Project
Author details
Total words: 31,792
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
5% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 5.1% percentile 1.0% BS Score3 analyzed articles31.8K 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 1.9% 1.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 5.4% 5.4% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.5% 2.5% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 11.9% 11.9% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.8% 1.8% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.1% 0.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 0.4% 0.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 0.3% 0.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.9% 1.9% 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 1.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 11.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 5.4%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.8%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 0.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.9%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 2.5%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.8%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst