Speaker summary
⁠44%3 analyzed articles/videos170 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Philip Grenz results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 36% saturation with 82.146 hits. Analysis detected 343.146 faulty-reasoning hits from 170 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 10.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (24,805 of 28,364 speakers). This Philip Grenz is better (less manipulative) than 87.50% of the peer group.
Philip Grenz
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 170
Article count: 3
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

13% percentile
025507510012.5% percentile
10.5% BS Score3 analyzed videos170 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 36.0%36.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 10.9%10.9%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 3.2%3.2%IndoctrinationSitewide 0.0%Speaker 6.6%6.6%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 10.9%10.9%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 7.4%7.4%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 3.2%3.2%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 6.6%6.6%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 4.8%4.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 15.7%15.7%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Halo Effect: Speaker 36.0%, sitewide 6.7%Framing Effect: Speaker 10.9%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 15.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 11.1%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 10.9%, sitewide 5.3%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 3.2%, sitewide 7.5%Ad Hominem: Speaker 7.4%, sitewide 2.2%Indoctrination: Speaker 6.6%, sitewide 0.0%Loss Aversion: Speaker 6.6%, sitewide 2.5%Optimism Bias: Speaker 4.8%, sitewide 6.0%Halo EffectSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos