Speaker summary
⁠94%1 analyzed article/video33 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Lindsay Clancy’s defense results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias and Special Pleading, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 99 faulty-reasoning hits from 33 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (3,314 of 40,165 speakers). This Lindsay Clancy’s defense is worse (more manipulative) than 91.80% of the peer group.
Lindsay Clancy’s defense
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%MARGARET BRENNAN1%
⁠0%Shahryar Yadegar1%
⁠92%Lindsay Clancy’s defense (selected)100%
⁠100%314 Action Fund100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 33
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

92% percentile
025507510091.8% percentile
100.0% BS Score1 analyzed videos33 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–125%
0.0%20%40%60%80%100%120%Special PleadingSitewide 0.3%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Speaker 100.0%100.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Speaker 100.0%100.0%

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 Authority: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 11.1%Self-Serving Bias: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 3.7%Special Pleading: Speaker 100.0%, sitewide 0.3%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos