Speaker summary
ā 31%1 analyzed article/video68 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Isom results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal and Burden of Proof, with Actor-Observer Bias as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 153 faulty-reasoning hits from 68 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ā 70% (8,678 of 28,364 speakers). This David Isom is worse (more manipulative) than 69.40% of the peer group.
David Isom
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
ā 0%Mike Muse1%
ā 0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
ā 70%David Isom (selected)50%
ā 100%4MATIV100%
ā 100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 68
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

69% percentile
025507510069.4% percentile
50.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos68 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“75%
0.0%20%40%60%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Actor-Observer BiasSitewide 0.6%Speaker 50.0%50.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Actor-Observer Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.6%Anecdotal: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 5.2%Burden of Proof: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.4%Actor-Observer BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos