Speaker summary
⁠93%1 analyzed article/video90 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Julia Cassidy results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Straw Man, and Negativity Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 90 hits. Analysis detected 405 faulty-reasoning hits from 90 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,454 of 28,364 speakers). This Julia Cassidy is worse (more manipulative) than 80.80% of the peer group.
Julia Cassidy
Speaker details
Total words: 90
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

81% percentile
025507510080.8% percentile
75.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos90 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Straw ManSitewide 0.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Straw Man: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 0.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 1.4%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos