Speaker summary
⁠61%1 analyzed article/video56 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lauren Gallagher results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 59.5% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 109 faulty-reasoning hits from 56 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 37.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (18,773 of 45,145 speakers). This Lauren Gallagher is worse (more manipulative) than 58.40% of the peer group.
Lauren Gallagher
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠59%Lauren Gallagher (selected)38%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 56
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

58% percentile
025507510058.4% percentile
37.5% BS Score1 analyzed videos56 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 59.5%59.5%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 40.5%40.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Speaker 20.2%20.2%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Speaker 29.8%29.8%

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 Emotion: Speaker 59.5%, sitewide 15.9%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 40.5%, sitewide 7.5%Negativity Bias: Speaker 29.8%, sitewide 19.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Speaker 20.2%, sitewide 0.8%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos