Speaker summary
ā 75%1 analyzed article/video44 analyzed words
BS Summary: These National Research Council results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 49.5 hits. Analysis detected 115.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 44 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 83.3% and a BS Rank of ā 83% (5,059 of 28,364 speakers). This National Research Council is worse (more manipulative) than 82.20% of the peer group.
National Research Council
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
ā 0%Mike Muse1%
ā 0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
ā 83%National Research Council (selected)84%
ā 100%4MATIV100%
ā 100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 44
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

82% percentile
025507510082.2% percentile
83.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos44 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 7.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos

Pharmaceutical Evolutionā 44%
The Daily Callerā 68%By AJ Fluehrā 71%4/7/2009, 9:32:12 AM