Principles for Property Mitigation Discounts 71%

By A. Benjamin Mannes96%

8/21/2009, 3:35:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Bandwagon, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 48.6% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 483 faulty-reasoning hits from 183 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of 71% (4,998 of 16,693 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

Encouraging property mitigation against catastrophes like floods and storms has become a major area of consensus for people on all sides of the debate over coastal insurance in hurricane-prone areas. 
Insurance regulators, advocacy groups across the political spectrum, and legislators all emphasize its importance. 
Mitigation essentially consists of efforts to prevent damage from disasters before the disasters take place. 
But in a broader sense, mitigation can refer to almost anything, from minor, low-cost activities like picking garden plantings with deep roots in hurricane-prone areas to massive efforts like infrastructure construction and community-wide land use planning. 
While mitigation is uncontroversial on a general level, specific mitigation measures often arouse debate. 
Property mitigation discounts has gained wide support around the country as a way to encourage mitigation. 
In concept, the idea that stronger homes should pay lower rates is non-controversial; nearly all homeowners’ insurers take construction type and characteristics into account for all properties they cover. 
Certain construction materials and techniques qualify for lower rates than others. 
To a certain extent, any property insurance policy issued already offers mitigation discounts. 
Confirmation Bias
15.8%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
15.8%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
7.1%
Framing Effect
28.4%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
16.4%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
7.7%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
48.6%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
8.7%
Hasty Generalization
23%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
25.1%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
26.8%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
7.7%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
16.4%
Indoctrination
7.7%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
8.7%

183 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.