Speaker summary
⁠75%1 analyzed article/video48 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Pat Burns results contain 8 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Hasty Generalization, and Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 73.6% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 246.75 faulty-reasoning hits from 48 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 53% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (7,917 of 28,364 speakers). This Pat Burns is worse (more manipulative) than 72.10% of the peer group.
Pat Burns
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 48
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

72% percentile
025507510072.1% percentile
53.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos48 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 88.2%88.2%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 73.6%73.6%Out-Group Homogeneity BiasSitewide 3.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 35.4%35.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 23.6%23.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 26.4%26.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 26.4%26.4%

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%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 8.1%Ad Hominem: Speaker 88.2%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 73.6%, sitewide 15.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 3.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 35.4%, sitewide 0.0%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 26.4%, sitewide 5.3%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 26.4%, sitewide 3.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 23.6%, sitewide 0.8%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos