Speaker summary
⁠60%1 analyzed article/video60 analyzed words
BS Summary: These San Francisco District Attorney’s Office results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 160 faulty-reasoning hits from 60 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (9,778 of 28,364 speakers). This San Francisco District Attorney’s Office is worse (more manipulative) than 65.50% of the peer group.
San Francisco District Attorney’s Office
Speaker details
Total words: 60
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

66% percentile
025507510065.5% percentile
50.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos60 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos