Speaker summary
⁠73%1 analyzed article/video95.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Marco Polo results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Framing Effect, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 66.9% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 321.854 faulty-reasoning hits from 95.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 30.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (14,732 of 28,364 speakers). This Marco Polo is better (less manipulative) than 51.90% of the peer group.
Marco Polo
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 95.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

48% percentile
025507510048.1% percentile
30.4% BS Score1 analyzed videos95.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 75.5%75.5%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 67.0%67.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 59.5%59.5%Politically Right Leaning…Sitewide 1.4%Speaker 28.8%28.8%Middle GroundSitewide 0.1%Speaker 14.4%14.4%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 4.2%4.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 19.4%19.4%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 10.2%10.2%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 14.4%14.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 10.2%10.2%

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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 75.5%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 67.0%, sitewide 19.2%Framing Effect: Speaker 59.5%, sitewide 26.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias: Speaker 28.8%, sitewide 1.4%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 19.4%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 4.2%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 14.4%, sitewide 6.9%Middle Ground: Speaker 14.4%, sitewide 0.1%Bandwagon: Speaker 10.2%, sitewide 2.2%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 10.2%, sitewide 5.3%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos