Speaker summary
⁠89%2 analyzed articles/videos107 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Quinnipiac University results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, False Dilemma, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 81.3% saturation with 87 hits. Analysis detected 270 faulty-reasoning hits from 107 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 42.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (11,406 of 28,364 speakers). This Quinnipiac University is worse (more manipulative) than 59.80% of the peer group.
Quinnipiac University
Speaker details
Total words: 107
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

60% percentile
025507510059.8% percentile
42.1% BS Score2 analyzed videos107 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 81.3%81.3%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 54.2%54.2%False DilemmaSitewide 1.5%Speaker 35.5%35.5%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Speaker 27.1%27.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Speaker 18.7%18.7%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 35.5%35.5%

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 81.3%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 54.2%, sitewide 9.1%False Dilemma: Speaker 35.5%, sitewide 1.5%Framing Effect: Speaker 35.5%, sitewide 26.9%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 27.1%, sitewide 1.9%Overconfidence Bias: Speaker 18.7%, sitewide 4.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos