BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 36.3% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 513 faulty-reasoning hits from 245 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.9% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,440 of 17,611 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.10% of the article peer group.

Oakland County Parks and Bloomfield Hills Schools are working together to turn natural areas into public parks. 
Officials say that this partnership is designed to protect the sites for the long term, give more residents easier access and keep school programs going. 
Oakland County Parks Director Chris Ward and Bloomfield Hills Schools Superintendent Rick West say the plan will make the land more open to the community while preserving a special natural area in a suburban neighborhood. 
Since Bloomfield Hills doesn’t have any public parks, this change is a big deal for local residents. 
Sites like the Johnson Nature Center may eventually connect to walking paths, including a safe route through the city. 
Students already use these sites for their lessons. 
A fifth-grade class took a field trip to the Johnson Nature Center recently to learn about the local watershed. 
West says the center is a valuable natural area in the midst of the highly developed community. 
“It’s… nature at its best, right here, nestled in Bloomfield Township, and our students get to benefit from it. 
Our community gets to benefit from it, and that’s the richness of the partnership [with Oakland County Parks],” he says. 
This agreement is a teamwork effort between the school district and the parks department, aimed at benefiting both recreation and education for students, local residents, and the entire county. 
This story is a part of WDET’s ongoing series, the Detroit Tree Canopy Project . 
Confirmation Bias
36.3%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
10.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
22%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
6.9%
Self-Serving Bias
8.2%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
6.9%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
7.8%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
21.2%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
6.9%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
22.9%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
10.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
11.8%
Anecdotal
11%
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
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
7.8%
Biased Writer Voice
17.1%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

245 words analyzed.

Analysis

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