Speaker summary
⁠60%2 analyzed articles/videos170 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Tiana Williams-Claussen results contain 6 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias, Loss Aversion, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 89.5% saturation with 196 hits. Analysis detected 391 faulty-reasoning hits from 170 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 29.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (14,241 of 26,846 speakers). This Tiana Williams-Claussen is better (less manipulative) than 53.00% of the peer group.
Tiana Williams-Claussen
Speaker details
Total words: 170
Article count: 2
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

47% percentile
025507510047.0% percentile
29.8% BS Score2 analyzed videos170 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 89.5%89.5%Loss AversionSitewide 2.5%Speaker 23.3%23.3%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 21.5%21.5%In-Group BiasSitewide 6.9%Speaker 23.3%23.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)Sitewide 3.3%Speaker 10.5%10.5%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 10.5%10.5%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 89.5%, sitewide 15.9%In-Group Bias: Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 6.9%Loss Aversion: Speaker 23.3%, sitewide 2.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 21.5%, sitewide 1.1%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 10.5%, sitewide 8.1%Post Hoc (False Cause): Speaker 10.5%, sitewide 3.3%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos