Speaker summary
⁠85%1 analyzed article/video74 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Pierre Poilievre results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, False Dilemma, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Tu Quoque as the most egregious example at 87.3% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 329.181 faulty-reasoning hits from 74 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 75.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (5,303 of 28,364 speakers). This Pierre Poilievre is worse (more manipulative) than 81.30% of the peer group.
Pierre Poilievre
Speaker details
Total words: 74
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

81% percentile
025507510081.3% percentile
75.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos74 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Tu QuoqueSitewide 0.2%Speaker 87.3%87.3%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 86.3%86.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 79.4%79.4%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 64.2%64.2%Fundamental Attribution E…Sitewide 2.7%Speaker 58.8%58.8%

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%Tu Quoque: Speaker 87.3%, sitewide 0.2%False Dilemma: Speaker 86.3%, sitewide 1.5%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 79.4%, sitewide 15.9%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 64.2%, sitewide 3.7%Fundamental Attribution Error: Speaker 58.8%, sitewide 2.7%Tu QuoqueSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos