Speaker summary
⁠55%1 analyzed article/video35.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion and Status Quo Bias, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 67.7% saturation with 28.452 hits. Analysis detected 72.452 faulty-reasoning hits from 35.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠63% (10,245 of 27,012 speakers). This Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak is worse (more manipulative) than 62.10% of the peer group.
Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak
Speaker details
Total words: 35.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

62% percentile
025507510062.1% percentile
46.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos35.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 67.7%67.7%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 35.5%35.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 35.5%35.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%In-Group Bias: Speaker 67.7%, sitewide 6.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 35.5%, sitewide 15.9%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 35.5%, sitewide 2.2%In-Group BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos