Speaker summary
⁠52%4 analyzed articles/videos162 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Institute for Justice results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 29.3% saturation with 65.524 hits. Analysis detected 387.776 faulty-reasoning hits from 162 analyzed words across 4 articles, generating a BS Score of 14.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠21% (22,506 of 28,364 speakers). This Institute for Justice is better (less manipulative) than 79.30% of the peer group.
Institute for Justice
Speaker details

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

21% percentile
025507510020.7% percentile
14.2% BS Score4 analyzed videos162 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 29.3%29.3%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 12.8%12.8%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 14.6%14.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 9.0%9.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 14.6%14.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 12.2%12.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 12.4%12.4%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 9.0%9.0%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 9.0%9.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 19.3%19.3%

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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 29.3%, sitewide 11.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 19.3%, sitewide 19.2%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 14.6%, sitewide 9.1%Burden of Proof: Speaker 12.8%, sitewide 0.4%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 12.4%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 12.2%, sitewide 7.5%Anecdotal: Speaker 9.0%, sitewide 5.2%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 9.0%, sitewide 5.3%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 9.0%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos