Author summary
57% 1 analyzed article/video 1,098 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Alison Hurley results contain 31 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Appeal to Emotion , and Anecdotal , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 19.4% saturation with 853 hits . Analysis detected 3,312 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,392 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of 56% (3,989 of 8,953 authors). This Alison Hurley is worse (more manipulative) than 55.50% of the peer group. Alison Hurley
Author details
Total words: 4,392
Article count: 1
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
56% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 55.5% percentile 2.4% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.4K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–25%
0.0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 1.1% 1.1% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 19.4% 19.4% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 6.2% 6.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 4.0% 4.0% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.1% 1.1% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.6% 0.6% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 2.4% 2.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.5% 3.5% Optimism Bias Sitewide 6.0% Author 1.4% 1.4% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.2% 0.2% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 5% 5% 10% 10% 15% 15% 20% 20% 25% 25% Halo Effect: Author 19.4%, sitewide 6.7% Negativity Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 6.2%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 4.0%, sitewide 11.1% Biased Writer Voice: Author 9.1%, sitewide 5.3% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 2.4%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Author 5.6%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 2.9%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Indoctrination: Author 2.6%, sitewide 0.0% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.4%, sitewide 0.8% Bandwagon: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.5%, sitewide 1.9% Pessimism Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 1.0%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.5% Halo Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst