Speaker summary
⁠85%1 analyzed article/video119.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These David Penaloza results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, In-Group Bias, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 76.6% saturation with 91.54 hits. Analysis detected 574.416 faulty-reasoning hits from 119.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠63% (10,674 of 28,364 speakers). This David Penaloza is worse (more manipulative) than 62.40% of the peer group.
David Penaloza
Speaker details
Total words: 119.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

62% percentile
025507510062.4% percentile
46.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos119.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 69.9%69.9%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 76.6%76.6%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 57.2%57.2%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 39.7%39.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 39.7%39.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 39.7%39.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 39.7%39.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 39.7%39.7%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 13.5%13.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Negativity Bias: Speaker 76.6%, sitewide 19.2%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 69.9%, sitewide 8.1%In-Group Bias: Speaker 57.2%, sitewide 6.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 39.7%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 39.7%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 39.7%, sitewide 5.3%Framing Effect: Speaker 39.7%, sitewide 26.9%Indoctrination: Speaker 39.7%, sitewide 0.0%Slippery Slope: Speaker 13.5%, sitewide 1.7%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos