Speaker summary
ā 32%1 analyzed article/video135.5 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Sarah Dillon results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 21.6% saturation with 47 hits. Analysis detected 129 faulty-reasoning hits from 135.5 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 19.7% and a BS Rank of ā 32% (19,414 of 28,364 speakers). This Sarah Dillon is better (less manipulative) than 68.40% of the peer group.
Sarah Dillon
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
ā 0%The Brookings Institution1%
ā 0%Gen Jack Keane1%
ā 0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
ā 0%Mike Muse1%
ā 0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
ā 32%Sarah Dillon (selected)20%
ā 100%4MATIV100%
ā 100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
ā 100%314 Action Fund100%
ā 100%21 Grams100%
ā 100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 135.5
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

32% percentile
025507510031.6% percentile
19.7% BS Score1 analyzed videos135.5 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 16.1%16.1%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 21.6%21.6%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 21.6%21.6%

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 21.6%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 21.6%, sitewide 7.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 16.1%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos