BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 71.8% saturation with 188 hits. Analysis detected 1,093 faulty-reasoning hits from 262 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99.2% and a BS Rank of 99% (285 of 19,487 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.50% of the article peer group.

In the early 1930s, the Australian government lost a war against emus , and its present war, this time on tobacco, is heading the same way. 
Excessive taxation in the name of public health has backfired in extraordinary fashion, helping create a massive black market in tobacco products. 
This has led to an effective transfer to criminal gangs of billions of dollars of revenue previously earned by the legal tobacco industry, and a corresponding significant drop in excise tax revenue collected by the government, unprecedented violence between those gangs as they scrap over money and territory, and, to top it all off, an increase in the consumption of tobacco and nicotine. 
The tobacco wars, as this gang-related violence has been called , may attract the headlines, but they are downstream of the government’s public policy failures. 
Indeed, the government should also be considered one of the belligerents in the fighting—and it urgently needs to rethink its strategy. 
The government’s approach so far is emblematic of Australia’s regnant style of governing, which might be called technocratic wowserism . 
It is, essentially, a determination to use law and policy for the purported moral improvement of the public, rather than to support their established customs and ways of life. 
In recent years, this moralistic tendency, ever-present in this most utilitarian of countries , has run rampant, with increasingly perverse results. 
The story of how Australia came to have a gang war over a product as commonplace as tobacco is therefore broadly instructive about the decline of this once prosperous and happy country. 
Confirmation Bias
41.2%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
11.1%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
20.6%
Negativity Bias
71.8%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
9.5%
Actor-Observer Bias
8%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
8%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
11.1%
Slippery Slope
9.9%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
24%
Red Herring
9.5%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
7.6%
Begging the Question
8%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
51.9%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
24%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
12.2%
Anecdotal
12.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
8%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
39.7%
Indoctrination
28.6%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

262 words analyzed.

Analysis

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