Speaker summary
⁠74%1 analyzed article/video56 analyzed words
BS Summary: These William Randell results contain 5 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 294 faulty-reasoning hits from 56 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 80% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (5,176 of 28,364 speakers). This William Randell is worse (more manipulative) than 81.80% of the peer group.
William Randell
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠0%Mike Muse1%
⁠0%Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, Inc.1%
⁠82%William Randell (selected)80%
⁠100%4MATIV100%
⁠100%42nd Avenue and High Street I-880 access improvement project page100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
Speaker details
Total words: 56
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

82% percentile
025507510081.8% percentile
80.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos56 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Unattributed QuoteSitewide 1.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%

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%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 15.9%Negativity Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Quote-first Misdirection: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 0.0%Unattributed Quote: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 1.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos