Author summary
7% 3 analyzed articles/videos 1,237 analyzed words
BS Summary: These New York Connect Team results contain 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Halo Effect , with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 3.8% saturation with 186 hits . Analysis detected 1,235 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,948 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.3% and a BS Rank of 16% (7,539 of 8,929 authors). This New York Connect Team is better (less manipulative) than 84.40% of the peer group. New York Connect Team
Author details
Total words: 4,948
Article count: 3
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
16% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 15.6% percentile 1.3% BS Score3 analyzed articles4.9K 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 3.1% 3.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 3.5% 3.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 3.8% 3.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 0.4% 0.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 1.5% 1.5% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.7% 1.7% Anecdotal Sitewide 5.2% Author 0.7% 0.7% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 2.3% 2.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 1.1% 1.1% Status Quo Bias Sitewide 2.2% Author 0.1% 0.1% 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 3.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 3.8%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 0.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 1.5%, sitewide 9.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.7%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Author 2.3%, sitewide 6.7% Biased Writer Voice: Author 1.1%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 0.7%, sitewide 5.2% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.2%, sitewide 3.3% Recency Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 2.7% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Author 1.2%, sitewide 1.7% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 1.2%, sitewide 0.8% Horn Effect: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.0% Indoctrination: Author 0.7%, sitewide 0.0% Circular Reasoning: Author 0.5%, sitewide 0.1% Burden of Proof: Author 0.3%, sitewide 0.4% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst