Speaker summary
61%1 analyzed article/video49 analyzed words
BS Summary: These University of Washington's Center for Human Rights results contain 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Availability Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 147 faulty-reasoning hits from 49 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 83% (3,165 of 18,550 speakers). This University of Washington's Center for Human Rights is worse (more manipulative) than 82.90% of the peer group.