Speaker summary
ā 48%1 analyzed article/video90.333 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Connell results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Hindsight Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 36.1% saturation with 43 hits. Analysis detected 163.687 faulty-reasoning hits from 90.333 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 36% and a BS Rank of ā 55% (12,898 of 28,364 speakers). This William Connell is worse (more manipulative) than 54.50% of the peer group.
William Connell
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 55%William Connell (selected)36%
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: 90.333
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

55% percentile
025507510054.5% percentile
36.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos90.3 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0ā€“50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 36.1%36.1%Hindsight BiasSitewide 1.4%Speaker 35.6%35.6%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 36.1%36.1%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 36.1%36.1%

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 36.1%, sitewide 11.1%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 36.1%, sitewide 7.5%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 36.1%, sitewide 1.1%Hindsight Bias: Speaker 35.6%, sitewide 1.4%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos