Speaker summary
⁠59%1 analyzed article/video49 analyzed words
BS Summary: These University of Washington's Center for Human Rights results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 147 faulty-reasoning hits from 49 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠85% (4,518 of 28,364 speakers). This University of Washington's Center for Human Rights is worse (more manipulative) than 84.10% of the peer group.
University of Washington's Center for Human Rights
Speaker details
Total words: 49
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

84% percentile
025507510084.1% percentile
100.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos49 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%

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%120%120%Anecdotal: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 5.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 9.1%AnecdotalSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos