Speaker summary
⁠73%1 analyzed article/video73 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Composition/Division and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 42.5% saturation with 31 hits. Analysis detected 78 faulty-reasoning hits from 73 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 35.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (12,985 of 28,364 speakers). This Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the peer group.
Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC)
Speaker details
Total words: 73
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510054.2% percentile
35.6% BS Score1 analyzed videos73 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Composition/DivisionSitewide 0.2%Speaker 42.5%42.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 42.5%42.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 21.9%21.9%

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 42.5%, sitewide 11.1%Composition/Division: Speaker 42.5%, sitewide 0.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 21.9%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos