Speaker summary
⁠53%1 analyzed article/video53.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Susan Sherman results contain 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 67.5% saturation with 54 hits. Analysis detected 179 faulty-reasoning hits from 53.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 34.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠54% (13,302 of 28,364 speakers). This Susan Sherman is worse (more manipulative) than 53.10% of the peer group.
Susan Sherman
Speaker details
Total words: 53.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

53% percentile
025507510053.1% percentile
34.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos53.3 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 67.5%67.5%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 35.0%35.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 23.8%23.8%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 41.3%41.3%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 47.5%47.5%Begging the QuestionSitewide 1.7%Speaker 17.5%17.5%Pessimism BiasSitewide 1.9%Speaker 8.8%8.8%

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 67.5%, sitewide 15.9%Framing Effect: Speaker 47.5%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 41.3%, sitewide 19.2%Ad Hominem: Speaker 35.0%, sitewide 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 23.8%, sitewide 0.8%Begging the Question: Speaker 17.5%, sitewide 1.7%Pessimism Bias: Speaker 8.8%, sitewide 1.9%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos