BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, False Dilemma, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 35.7% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 630 faulty-reasoning hits from 255 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.6% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,552 of 19,670 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.90% of the article peer group.

Sometime in 2010 or 2011, Congress expects to decide how to spend the $250 billion or more of federal gas taxes and other highway user fees that will be collected over the next six years. 
The process of doing so is called surface transportation reauthorization. 
A major point of contention in this law is how much of our transportation system should be centrally planned and how much should be built and operated in response to the needs of actual transportation users. 
Advocates of top-down planning want to reduce per capita driving by providing disincentives to automobiles, such as increased congestion and driving costs, and funding expensive alternatives such as high-speed rail and rail transit. 
Even if you believe in the goal of reducing per capita driving, the evidence indicates that these tools have minimal effect on driving and may even be environmentally counterproductive. 
Advocates of customer-driven transportation want to fund transportation out of user fees, not taxes, and make transportation providers—whether public agencies or private parties—responsive to the needs and desires of those users. 
Decades of experience have proven that the best way of reducing the environmental costs of transportation is to use new technologies to reduce the impacts per mile of mobility, not to reduce mobility itself. 
This citizens’ guide presents the basic facts behind these two views. 
Randal O’Toole is a senior fellow with the Cato Institute and author of the forthcoming book, Gridlock: Why We’re Stuck in Traffic and What to Do About It. 
Confirmation Bias
11.4%
Anchoring Bias
13.7%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
13.3%
Framing Effect
33.7%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
11.4%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
12.9%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
11%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
4.3%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
12.9%
Appeal to Authority
35.7%
False Dilemma
26.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
24.7%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
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)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
13.3%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
22.4%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

255 words analyzed.

Analysis

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