Speaker summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video147.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Claudio Bernardino results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, False Dilemma, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.7% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 349.641 faulty-reasoning hits from 147.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 21.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠34% (18,731 of 28,364 speakers). This Claudio Bernardino is better (less manipulative) than 66.00% of the peer group.
Claudio Bernardino
Speaker details
Total words: 147.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

34% percentile
025507510034.0% percentile
21.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos147.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 49.5%49.5%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 30.6%30.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 33.9%33.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 38.7%38.7%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 16.6%16.6%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 11.7%11.7%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 13.5%13.5%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 5.2%5.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 6.1%6.1%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 5.2%5.2%

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 49.5%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 38.7%, sitewide 19.2%Optimism Bias: Speaker 33.9%, sitewide 6.0%False Dilemma: Speaker 30.6%, sitewide 1.5%Indoctrination: Speaker 16.6%, sitewide 0.0%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 13.5%, sitewide 8.1%Anecdotal: Speaker 11.7%, sitewide 5.2%In-Group Bias: Speaker 5.2%, sitewide 6.9%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 6.1%, sitewide 3.3%Bandwagon: Speaker 5.2%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos