Speaker summary
⁠92%1 analyzed article/video82.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Meg Ellefson results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Appeal to Emotion, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 316.681 faulty-reasoning hits from 82.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 44.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠61% (10,497 of 26,841 speakers). This Meg Ellefson is worse (more manipulative) than 60.90% of the peer group.
Meg Ellefson
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 82.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

61% percentile
025507510060.9% percentile
44.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos82.7 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 71.8%71.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 49.6%49.6%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 55.9%55.9%Horn EffectSitewide 1.0%Speaker 33.1%33.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 33.1%33.1%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 16.9%16.9%

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 71.8%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 55.9%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 49.6%, sitewide 0.0%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 33.1%, sitewide 7.5%Horn Effect: Speaker 33.1%, sitewide 1.0%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 16.9%, sitewide 1.1%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos