Speaker summary
⁠51%1 analyzed article/video42.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Azealia Banks results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Personal Incredulity, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 48.4% saturation with 31 hits. Analysis detected 122 faulty-reasoning hits from 42.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 22.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (17,310 of 26,899 speakers). This Azealia Banks is better (less manipulative) than 64.40% of the peer group.
Azealia Banks
Speaker details
Total words: 42.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

36% percentile
025507510035.6% percentile
22.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos42.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Personal IncredulitySitewide 0.2%Speaker 32.8%32.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 48.4%48.4%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 32.8%32.8%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 32.8%32.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 18.8%18.8%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 9.4%9.4%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 9.4%9.4%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 7.8%7.8%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 7.8%7.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 48.4%, sitewide 15.9%Ad Hominem: Speaker 32.8%, sitewide 2.2%Personal Incredulity: Speaker 32.8%, sitewide 0.2%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 32.8%, sitewide 1.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 18.8%, sitewide 8.1%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 9.4%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Speaker 9.4%, sitewide 1.7%Burden of Proof: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 0.4%Loss Aversion: Speaker 7.8%, sitewide 2.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos