Speaker summary
⁠67%1 analyzed article/video79.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Marie Alvarado-Gil results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Bandwagon, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 62.3% saturation with 66 hits. Analysis detected 294.287 faulty-reasoning hits from 79.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 44.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (11,003 of 28,364 speakers). This Marie Alvarado-Gil is worse (more manipulative) than 61.20% of the peer group.
Marie Alvarado-Gil
Speaker details
Total words: 79.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

61% percentile
025507510061.2% percentile
44.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos79.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%BandwagonSitewide 2.2%Speaker 60.6%60.6%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 49.2%49.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 62.3%62.3%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 37.7%37.7%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 37.7%37.7%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 24.5%24.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 37.7%37.7%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Negativity Bias: Speaker 62.3%, sitewide 19.2%Bandwagon: Speaker 60.6%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 49.2%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 37.7%, sitewide 15.9%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 37.7%, sitewide 5.3%False Dilemma: Speaker 37.7%, sitewide 1.5%Begging the Question: Speaker 24.5%, sitewide 1.7%Negativity BiasSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos