Speaker summary
⁠71%1 analyzed article/video116 analyzed words
BS Summary: These High Court in Dublin results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect and Halo Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 116 faulty-reasoning hits from 116 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 33.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠55% (20,702 of 45,128 speakers). This High Court in Dublin is worse (more manipulative) than 54.10% of the peer group.
High Court in Dublin
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠55%High Court in Dublin (selected)34%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 116
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

54% percentile
025507510054.1% percentile
33.3% BS Score1 analyzed videos116 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 50.0%50.0%Halo EffectSitewide 6.7%Speaker 21.6%21.6%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Speaker 28.4%28.4%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Appeal to Authority: Speaker 50.0%, sitewide 11.1%Framing Effect: Speaker 28.4%, sitewide 26.9%Halo Effect: Speaker 21.6%, sitewide 6.7%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos