Speaker summary
⁠36%3 analyzed articles/videos155.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Rita F. Lin results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Burden of Proof, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 22% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 232 faulty-reasoning hits from 155.5 analyzed words across 3 articles, generating a BS Score of 11.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠15% (22,128 of 25,929 speakers). This Rita F. Lin is better (less manipulative) than 85.30% of the peer group.
Rita F. Lin

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

15% percentile
025507510014.7% percentile
11.6% BS Score3 analyzed videos155.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 13.6%13.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 22.0%22.0%Burden of ProofSitewide 0.4%Speaker 9.8%9.8%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 8.7%8.7%Actor-Observer BiasSitewide 0.6%Speaker 8.4%8.4%Biased Writer VoiceSitewide 5.3%Speaker 8.7%8.7%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 9.8%9.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%5%5%10%10%15%15%20%20%25%25%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 22.0%, sitewide 11.1%Recency Bias: Speaker 13.6%, sitewide 2.7%Burden of Proof: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 0.4%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 9.8%, sitewide 7.5%Biased Writer Voice: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 5.3%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 8.7%, sitewide 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias: Speaker 8.4%, sitewide 0.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos