Speaker summary
⁠61%1 analyzed article/video53.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Paul Cassell results contain 2 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 85 faulty-reasoning hits from 53.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 62.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (6,668 of 27,832 speakers). This Paul Cassell is worse (more manipulative) than 76.00% of the peer group.
Paul Cassell
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 53.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

76% percentile
025507510076.0% percentile
62.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos53.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 75.0%75.0%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%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%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 75.0%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 7.5%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos