Speaker summary
⁠63%1 analyzed article/video20 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Dave Foreman results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and In-Group Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 19 hits. Analysis detected 40 faulty-reasoning hits from 20 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 42.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (11,039 of 27,299 speakers). This Dave Foreman is worse (more manipulative) than 59.60% of the peer group.
Dave Foreman
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%
⁠60%Dave Foreman (selected)43%
⁠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: 20
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

60% percentile
025507510059.6% percentile
42.1% BS Score1 analyzed videos20 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 47.4%47.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 52.6%52.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 5.3%5.3%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 5.3%5.3%

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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 52.6%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 47.4%, sitewide 0.8%In-Group Bias: Speaker 5.3%, sitewide 6.9%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 5.3%, sitewide 1.1%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos