Speaker summary
⁠61%1 analyzed article/video34.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Patricia DePriest results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, In-Group Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 26 hits. Analysis detected 130 faulty-reasoning hits from 34.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 60% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (7,064 of 28,364 speakers). This Patricia DePriest is worse (more manipulative) than 75.10% of the peer group.
Patricia DePriest
Speaker details
Total words: 34.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

75% percentile
025507510075.1% percentile
60.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos34.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%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%Ad Hominem: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 2.2%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 6.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.0%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 1.1%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos