Speaker summary
48%9 analyzed articles/videos250 analyzed words
BS Summary: These The Economist results contain 10 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Hasty Generalization, and Recency Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 47.4% saturation with 174 hits. Analysis detected 499.835 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words across 9 articles, generating a BS Score of 14.8% and a BS Rank of 22% (22,119 of 28,364 speakers). This The Economist is better (less manipulative) than 78.00% of the peer group.

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

22% percentile
025507510022.0% percentile
14.8% BS Score9 analyzed videos250 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 47.4%47.4%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 21.0%21.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 20.6%20.6%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 12.3%12.3%Recency BiasSitewide 2.7%Speaker 13.1%13.1%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 12.3%12.3%Red HerringSitewide 0.7%Speaker 6.0%6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 4.6%4.6%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 6.7%6.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 4.0%4.0%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%10%10%20%20%30%30%40%40%50%50%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 47.4%, sitewide 11.1%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 21.0%, sitewide 1.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 20.6%, sitewide 8.1%Negativity Bias: Speaker 12.3%, sitewide 19.2%Recency Bias: Speaker 13.1%, sitewide 2.7%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 12.3%, sitewide 0.0%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 6.7%, sitewide 9.1%Red Herring: Speaker 6.0%, sitewide 0.7%Anecdotal: Speaker 4.0%, sitewide 5.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 4.6%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate