Speaker summary
⁠77%1 analyzed article/video50.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Andrea Feniger results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 190 faulty-reasoning hits from 50.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 60% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (7,009 of 28,364 speakers). This Andrea Feniger is worse (more manipulative) than 75.30% of the peer group.
Andrea Feniger
Speaker details
Total words: 50.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

75% percentile
025507510075.3% percentile
60.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos50.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 3.3%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.0%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos