Speaker summary
⁠83%1 analyzed article/video108 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Qin Huang results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Slippery Slope, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 65.5% saturation with 70.756 hits. Analysis detected 207.512 faulty-reasoning hits from 108 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 44.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠62% (10,886 of 28,364 speakers). This Qin Huang is worse (more manipulative) than 61.60% of the peer group.
Qin Huang
Speaker ranking list
Speaker details
Total words: 108
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

62% percentile
025507510061.6% percentile
44.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos108 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Speaker 65.5%65.5%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 65.5%65.5%Slippery SlopeSitewide 1.7%Speaker 35.3%35.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 13.2%13.2%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 65.5%, sitewide 15.9%Optimism Bias: Speaker 65.5%, sitewide 6.0%Slippery Slope: Speaker 35.3%, sitewide 1.7%Framing Effect: Speaker 13.2%, sitewide 26.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos