Speaker summary
⁠77%1 analyzed article/video111.667 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Linda Li results contain 4 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Self-Serving Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 72.7% saturation with 86.49 hits. Analysis detected 228.967 faulty-reasoning hits from 111.667 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (15,339 of 44,720 speakers). This Linda Li is worse (more manipulative) than 65.70% of the peer group.
Linda Li
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠66%Linda Li (selected)48%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 111.667
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

66% percentile
025507510065.7% percentile
47.9% BS Score1 analyzed videos111.7 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–100%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Speaker 72.7%72.7%AnecdotalSitewide 5.2%Speaker 60.9%60.9%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 31.2%31.2%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Speaker 26.8%26.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%80%80%100%100%Appeal to Emotion: Speaker 72.7%, sitewide 15.9%Anecdotal: Speaker 60.9%, sitewide 5.2%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 31.2%, sitewide 3.7%Hasty Generalization: Speaker 26.8%, sitewide 8.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos