Speaker summary
54% 17 analyzed articles/videos 585 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Amnesty International results contain 17 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Framing Effect , and Confirmation Bias , with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 31% saturation with 191.282 hits . Analysis detected 969.419 faulty-reasoning hits from 585 analyzed words across 17 articles and videos, generating a BS Score of 8.3% and a BS Rank of 8% (26,127 of 28,364 speakers). This Amnesty International is better (less manipulative) than 92.10% of the peer group. Amnesty International
Speaker details
Total words: 585
Content count: 17
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed speakers
8% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 7.9% percentile 8.3% BS Score17 analyzed videos585 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% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Speaker 31.0% 31.0% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Speaker 11.1% 11.1% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Speaker 10.3% 10.3% Attempt to Sell a Product… Sitewide 0.5% Speaker 5.4% 5.4% False Dilemma Sitewide 1.5% Speaker 5.4% 5.4% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Speaker 11.0% 11.0% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Speaker 21.5% 21.5% Ad Hominem Sitewide 2.2% Speaker 4.2% 4.2% Ambiguity (Equivocation) Sitewide 0.8% Speaker 2.7% 2.7% Unattributed Quote Sitewide 1.1% Speaker 3.0% 3.0% 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% Appeal to Authority: Speaker 31.0%, sitewide 11.1% Framing Effect: Speaker 11.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Speaker 21.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 15.9% Confirmation Bias: Speaker 11.0%, sitewide 7.5% Availability Heuristic: Speaker 10.9%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Speaker 8.3%, sitewide 8.1% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Speaker 5.4%, sitewide 0.5% False Dilemma: Speaker 5.4%, sitewide 1.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 5.0%, sitewide 3.3% Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 4.6% Ad Hominem: Speaker 4.2%, sitewide 2.2% Begging the Question: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 1.7% Unattributed Quote: Speaker 3.0%, sitewide 1.1% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 2.7%, sitewide 0.8% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Speaker 2.7%, sitewide 2.0% Slippery Slope: Speaker 2.3%, sitewide 1.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide rate Speaker rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst