Speaker summary
⁠76%1 analyzed article/video86.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lucy Trout results contain 9 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Optimism Bias, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 375.25 faulty-reasoning hits from 86.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (12,138 of 26,478 speakers). This Lucy Trout is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the peer group.
Lucy Trout
Speaker details
Total words: 86.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510054.2% percentile
36.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos86.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 60.8%60.8%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 43.1%43.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 28.5%28.5%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 28.5%28.5%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 21.5%21.5%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 21.5%21.5%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 21.5%21.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Optimism Bias: Speaker 60.8%, sitewide 6.0%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 43.1%, sitewide 8.1%Halo Effect: Speaker 28.5%, sitewide 6.7%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 28.5%, sitewide 1.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 21.5%, sitewide 26.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 21.5%, sitewide 5.2%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 21.5%, sitewide 1.9%Optimism BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos