Speaker summary
⁠36%1 analyzed article/video61.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sandra results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Representativeness Heuristic, and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 59.9% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 143 faulty-reasoning hits from 61.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 25.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (16,756 of 28,364 speakers). This Sandra is better (less manipulative) than 59.10% of the peer group.
Sandra
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠41%Sandra (selected)26%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 61.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

41% percentile
025507510040.9% percentile
25.2% BS Score1 analyzed videos61.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 59.9%59.9%Representativeness Heuris…Sitewide 1.9%Speaker 12.7%12.7%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 8.4%8.4%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 19.7%19.7%

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 59.9%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 19.7%, sitewide 19.2%Representativeness Heuristic: Speaker 12.7%, sitewide 1.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 8.4%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos