Speaker summary
⁠48%1 analyzed article/video70.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jake Loosararian results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 38.7% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 148 faulty-reasoning hits from 70.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 20.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠33% (17,783 of 26,559 speakers). This Jake Loosararian is better (less manipulative) than 67.00% of the peer group.
Jake Loosararian
Speaker details
Total words: 70.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

33% percentile
025507510033.0% percentile
20.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos70.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 38.7%38.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 34.0%34.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 30.2%30.2%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 15.1%15.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 22.6%22.6%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 11.3%11.3%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 7.5%7.5%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 7.5%7.5%

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%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 38.7%, sitewide 0.8%Halo Effect: Speaker 34.0%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 30.2%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 22.6%, sitewide 11.1%Begging the Question: Speaker 15.1%, sitewide 1.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 11.3%, sitewide 1.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 7.5%, sitewide 5.3%Optimism Bias: Speaker 7.5%, sitewide 6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos