Speaker summary
⁠54%1 analyzed article/video265 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Office of Legal Counsel results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Authority, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 158 faulty-reasoning hits from 265 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 14.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠23% (22,072 of 28,364 speakers). This Office of Legal Counsel is better (less manipulative) than 77.80% of the peer group.
Office of Legal Counsel
Speaker details
Total words: 265
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

22% percentile
025507510022.2% percentile
14.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos265 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 16.6%16.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 16.6%16.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 14.0%14.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 12.4%12.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 16.6%, sitewide 3.3%Recency Bias: Speaker 16.6%, sitewide 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 14.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 12.4%, sitewide 11.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos