Author summary
91% 3 analyzed articles/videos 4,258 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Alliance to Protect Delaware’s Future results contain 42 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Appeal to Authority , and Post Hoc (False Cause) , with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 12.6% saturation with 2,146 hits . Analysis detected 17,083 faulty-reasoning hits from 17,032 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.4% and a BS Rank of 56% (4,226 of 9,457 authors). This Alliance to Protect Delaware’s Future is worse (more manipulative) than 55.30% of the peer group. Alliance to Protect Delaware’s Future
Author details
Total words: 17,032
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
55% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 55.3% percentile 2.4% BS Score3 analyzed articles17K 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 6.4% 6.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 0.7% 0.7% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.6% 3.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 3.3% 3.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 12.6% 12.6% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 0.4% 0.4% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 11.3% 11.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 2.5% 2.5% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.7% 0.7% Post Hoc (False Cause) Sitewide 3.3% Author 6.7% 6.7% 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 6.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.6%, sitewide 15.9% Confirmation Bias: Author 12.6%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 11.3%, sitewide 6.7% Appeal to Authority: Author 10.5%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 3.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 5.7%, sitewide 8.1% In-Group Bias: Author 2.5%, sitewide 6.9% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 6.7%, sitewide 3.3% Optimism Bias: Author 3.9%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.5%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 0.4%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 2.0%, sitewide 4.6% Status Quo Bias: Author 4.4%, sitewide 2.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.7%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.6%, sitewide 3.7% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.5%, sitewide 2.5% False Dilemma: Author 2.4%, sitewide 1.5% Bandwagon: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst