Speaker summary
56%5 analyzed articles/videos103.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Department of Housing and Urban Development results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 56.8% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 451 faulty-reasoning hits from 103.5 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 25.6% and a BS Rank of 42% (16,567 of 28,364 speakers). This Department of Housing and Urban Development is better (less manipulative) than 58.40% of the peer group.
Department of Housing and Urban Development

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

42% percentile
025507510041.6% percentile
25.6% BS Score5 analyzed videos103.5 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 56.8%56.8%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 36.4%36.4%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 23.3%23.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 23.3%23.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 22.2%22.2%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 17.6%17.6%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 23.3%23.3%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 15.9%15.9%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 14.2%14.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 23.3%23.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 56.8%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 36.4%, sitewide 9.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 0.8%Halo Effect: Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 6.7%Indoctrination: Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 0.0%Negativity Bias: Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 19.2%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 22.2%, sitewide 3.3%Burden of Proof: Speaker 17.6%, sitewide 0.4%Recency Bias: Speaker 15.9%, sitewide 2.7%Begging the Question: Speaker 14.2%, sitewide 1.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate