Author summary
79% 3 analyzed articles/videos 1,253 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Mitchell Armentrout results contain 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Confirmation Bias , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 10% saturation with 680 hits . Analysis detected 4,969 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,780 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 2.2% and a BS Rank of 50% (4,475 of 8,806 authors). This Mitchell Armentrout is better (less manipulative) than 50.80% of the peer group. Mitchell Armentrout
Author details
Total words: 6,780
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
49% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 49.2% percentile 2.2% BS Score3 analyzed articles6.8K 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 5.4% 5.4% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 7.1% 7.1% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 2.0% 2.0% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.1% 2.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 10.0% 10.0% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 1.4% 1.4% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.3% 3.3% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 1.3% 1.3% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.4% 0.4% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 3.4% 3.4% 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 5.4%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 7.1%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 10.0%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 2.0%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.1%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 4.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 3.4%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Author 1.4%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 3.5%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.3%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 3.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.5%, sitewide 3.3% Recency Bias: Author 2.9%, sitewide 2.7% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Hindsight Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 1.4% Bandwagon: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 1.4%, sitewide 2.0% Representativeness Heuristic: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.9% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst