Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video73.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Eby results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Recency Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 86.4% saturation with 71.25 hits. Analysis detected 223.125 faulty-reasoning hits from 73.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (12,890 of 28,364 speakers). This David Eby is worse (more manipulative) than 54.60% of the peer group.
David Eby
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 73.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

55% percentile
025507510054.6% percentile
36.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos73.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 86.4%86.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 40.9%40.9%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 40.9%40.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 38.6%38.6%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 18.2%18.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 9.1%9.1%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 18.2%18.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Ad Hominem: Speaker 86.4%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 40.9%, sitewide 0.8%Recency Bias: Speaker 40.9%, sitewide 2.7%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 38.6%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 18.2%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 9.1%, sitewide 19.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 18.2%, sitewide 0.0%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos