Speaker summary
⁠38%2 analyzed articles/videos28.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Fighting for Michigan PAC results contain 1 faulty reasoning type, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 18 hits. Analysis detected 18 faulty-reasoning hits from 28.5 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠69% (8,828 of 28,364 speakers). This Fighting for Michigan PAC is worse (more manipulative) than 68.90% of the peer group.
Fighting for Michigan PAC
Speaker details
Total words: 28.5
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

69% percentile
025507510068.9% percentile
50.0% BS Score2 analyzed videos28.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos