Speaker summary
⁠69%1 analyzed article/video52.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Claudia Webbe results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 187.217 faulty-reasoning hits from 52.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 46.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠63% (10,592 of 28,364 speakers). This Claudia Webbe is worse (more manipulative) than 62.70% of the peer group.
Claudia Webbe
Speaker details
Total words: 52.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

63% percentile
025507510062.7% percentile
46.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos52.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 59.6%59.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 47.5%47.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 33.9%33.9%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 33.9%33.9%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 33.9%33.9%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 18.6%18.6%

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%Negativity Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 19.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 59.6%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 47.5%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 33.9%, sitewide 5.3%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 33.9%, sitewide 3.3%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 33.9%, sitewide 3.7%Burden of Proof: Speaker 18.6%, sitewide 0.4%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos