Speaker summary
⁠62%1 analyzed article/video53.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Jennifer Tamas results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 205 faulty-reasoning hits from 53.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 65% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (6,447 of 28,364 speakers). This Jennifer Tamas is worse (more manipulative) than 77.30% of the peer group.
Jennifer Tamas
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠78%Jennifer Tamas (selected)65%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 53.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

77% percentile
025507510077.3% percentile
65.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos53.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%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%80%80%100%100%120%120%Anchoring Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 4.0%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 11.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 1.1%Anchoring BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos