Speaker summary
⁠39%1 analyzed article/video41.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Elim Chan results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 33.3% saturation with 25 hits. Analysis detected 60 faulty-reasoning hits from 41.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 20% and a BS Rank of ⁠32% (19,287 of 28,364 speakers). This Elim Chan is better (less manipulative) than 68.00% of the peer group.
Elim Chan
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠32%Elim Chan (selected)20%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 41.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

32% percentile
025507510032.0% percentile
20.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos41.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 33.3%33.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 20.0%20.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 13.3%13.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 13.3%13.3%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 33.3%, sitewide 5.3%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 20.0%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 13.3%, sitewide 15.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 13.3%, sitewide 0.8%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos