Speaker summary
⁠80%1 analyzed article/video78 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Center for Strategic & International Studies results contain 2 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, with Ad Hominem as the most egregious example at 62.8% saturation with 49 hits. Analysis detected 98 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 62.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (9,533 of 44,310 speakers). This Center for Strategic & International Studies is worse (more manipulative) than 78.50% of the peer group.
Center for Strategic & International Studies
Speaker ranking list
PercentileSpeakerBS Score
⁠0%Paul Heideman1%
⁠0%The Brookings Institution1%
⁠0%Conor Heffernan1%
⁠0%Gen Jack Keane1%
⁠0%Katy Longshore1%
⁠79%Center for Strategic & International Studies (selected)63%
⁠100%291 Brewhouse100%
⁠100%21 Grams100%
⁠100%2035 Initiative100%
⁠100%1X representative100%
⁠100%1455 Storytelling Arts100%
Speaker details
Total words: 78
Article count: 1
Authors

Ranking context

Position among analyzed speakers

79% percentile
025507510078.5% percentile
62.8% BS Score1 analyzed videos78 analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

SpeakerSitewideShared scale 0–75%
0.0%20%40%60%Ad HominemSitewide 2.2%Speaker 62.8%62.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Speaker 62.8%62.8%

Sitewide departure map

Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often

0.0%0.0%20%20%40%40%60%60%Ad Hominem: Speaker 62.8%, sitewide 2.2%Confirmation Bias: Speaker 62.8%, sitewide 7.5%Ad HominemSitewide rateSpeaker rate

Analyzed articles and videos