Speaker summary
⁠77%1 analyzed article/video49.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Allison Isermann results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Begging the Question, and Indoctrination, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 360.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 49.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,079 of 26,780 speakers). This Allison Isermann is worse (more manipulative) than 81.00% of the peer group.
Allison Isermann
Speaker details
Total words: 49.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

81% percentile
025507510081.0% percentile
75.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos49.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 100.0%100.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 75.0%75.0%No True ScotsmanSitewide 0.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 6.9%False Dilemma: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 1.5%Begging the Question: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 1.7%Indoctrination: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%No True Scotsman: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos