Speaker summary
⁠84%2 analyzed articles/videos142.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Gabby Giffords results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 91.8% saturation with 130.808 hits. Analysis detected 386.131 faulty-reasoning hits from 142.5 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 32.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (14,123 of 28,364 speakers). This Gabby Giffords is worse (more manipulative) than 50.20% of the peer group.
Gabby Giffords
Speaker details
Total words: 142.5
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

50% percentile
025507510050.2% percentile
32.2% BS Score2 analyzed videos142.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 91.8%91.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 58.9%58.9%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 43.0%43.0%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 27.2%27.2%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 22.2%22.2%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 22.2%22.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 10.3%10.3%Primacy EffectSitewide 0.9%Speaker 4.1%4.1%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 91.8%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 58.9%, sitewide 11.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 43.0%, sitewide 6.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 27.2%, sitewide 5.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 26.9%Begging the Question: Speaker 22.2%, sitewide 1.7%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 22.2%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 10.3%, sitewide 19.2%Primacy Effect: Speaker 4.1%, sitewide 0.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos