Speaker summary
⁠54%1 analyzed article/video68 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dan Rutherford results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 68.6% saturation with 70 hits. Analysis detected 190 faulty-reasoning hits from 68 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 38.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠57% (12,023 of 27,792 speakers). This Dan Rutherford is worse (more manipulative) than 56.70% of the peer group.
Dan Rutherford
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠57%Dan Rutherford (selected)39%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 68
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

57% percentile
025507510056.7% percentile
38.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos68 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 68.6%68.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 34.3%34.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 15.7%15.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 23.5%23.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 68.6%, sitewide 11.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 34.3%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 23.5%, sitewide 15.9%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 15.7%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos