Speaker summary
⁠95%1 analyzed article/video35 analyzed words
BS Summary: These HIT Strategies results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 140 faulty-reasoning hits from 35 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,811 of 28,364 speakers). This HIT Strategies is worse (more manipulative) than 93.60% of the peer group.
HIT Strategies
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 35
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

94% percentile
025507510093.6% percentile
100.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos35 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%120%120%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 3.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos