Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video104 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Edwin Santana results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Hasty Generalization, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 42.3% saturation with 49.5 hits. Analysis detected 385.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 104 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 32.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (13,963 of 28,364 speakers). This Edwin Santana is worse (more manipulative) than 50.80% of the peer group.
Edwin Santana
Speaker details
Total words: 104
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

51% percentile
025507510050.8% percentile
32.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos104 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 56.4%56.4%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 32.7%32.7%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 28.2%28.2%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 28.2%28.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 42.3%42.3%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 28.2%28.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 28.2%28.2%Status Quo BiasSitewide 2.2%Speaker 21.8%21.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 28.2%28.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ad Hominem: Speaker 56.4%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 42.3%, sitewide 15.9%False Dilemma: Speaker 32.7%, sitewide 1.5%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 28.2%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 28.2%, sitewide 19.2%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 28.2%, sitewide 1.9%Slippery Slope: Speaker 28.2%, sitewide 1.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 28.2%, sitewide 1.1%Status Quo Bias: Speaker 21.8%, sitewide 2.2%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos