Speaker summary
75%1 analyzed article/video61.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Parisa Nasr results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 333.5 faulty-reasoning hits from 61.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 83.3% and a BS Rank of 83% (5,061 of 28,364 speakers). This Parisa Nasr is worse (more manipulative) than 82.20% of the peer group.
Parisa Nasr
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 61.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

82% percentile
025507510082.2% percentile
83.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos61.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%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 Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 8.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 0.0%Ad Hominem: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 2.2%Negativity Bias: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos