Speaker summary
⁠44%1 analyzed article/video61.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Emily Cohen results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Optimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 33.7% saturation with 31 hits. Analysis detected 137 faulty-reasoning hits from 61.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 27.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠45% (15,781 of 28,364 speakers). This Emily Cohen is better (less manipulative) than 55.60% of the peer group.
Emily Cohen
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%
⁠45%Emily Cohen (selected)28%
⁠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: 61.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

44% percentile
025507510044.4% percentile
27.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos61.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 32.6%32.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 33.7%33.7%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 16.3%16.3%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 33.7%33.7%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 16.3%16.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 32.6%32.6%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 33.7%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 33.7%, sitewide 19.2%Optimism Bias: Speaker 32.6%, sitewide 6.0%Framing Effect: Speaker 32.6%, sitewide 26.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 16.3%, sitewide 1.7%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 16.3%, sitewide 3.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos