NY Post94%

California high school suddenly shuts down after toxic discovery 34%

By Marina Peña32%

8/3/2026, 6:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Pessimism Bias, with Loss Aversion as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 412 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.6% and a BS Rank of 34% (20,354 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.60% of the article peer group.

A Bay Area high school will remain closed until toxic substance control inspectors decide it’s safe for students to head back for the new school year, according to school district officials. 
The shutdown of Kennedy High School, in Richmond, California, about 20 miles from San Francisco, came after vapor test results showed levels of tetrachloroethylene (PCE) on site, West Contra Costa Unified School District officials said. 
“We recognize the urgency of this situation and that this is a concerning update as the start of the school year is rapidly approaching,” district superintendent Cheryl Cotton wrote in an email to the school community. 
“While the Department of Toxic Substances Control has told WCCUSD that they believe that, based on the preliminary results available, there is no immediate risk to health and safety, further testing is needed in order to verify that it is safe for students and staff to be on campus,” she continued. 
Tetrachloroethylene exposure can be harmful to the nervous system, liver, kidneys, and reproductive system. 
It can also intoxicate unborn children. 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) says that people exposed to tetrachloroethylene, may also be at a higher risk of getting certain types of cancer. 
Cotton said the district decided to close down the school “out of an abundance of caution.” 
As of late, no staff or students are allowed on Kennedy’s campus until additional testing is completed, and authorities say the school is safe, officials said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.0%Marina Peña: 3.5%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%Marina Peña: 2.6%California Post: 4.1%Availability Heuristic10.4%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.9%California Post: 9.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 26.8%Marina Peña: 6.7%California Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion26.8%This article: 10.4%Marina Peña: 2.6%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Marina Peña: 1.6%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 14.4%Marina Peña: 3.6%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias14.4%This article: 11.6%Marina Peña: 4.7%California Post: 15.3%Negativity Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 2.6%California Post: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.0%Marina Peña: 7.2%California Post: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion8.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 3.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.4%Marina Peña: 5.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.4%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 22.8%Marina Peña: 5.7%California Post: 3.1%Unattributed Quote22.8%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 24.0%Marina Peña: 7.5%California Post: 12.4%Biased Writer Voice24.0%This article: 5.6%Marina Peña: 1.4%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination5.6%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 2.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marina Peña: 0.0%California Post: 5.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

250 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers49%attributed speech128writer words
Selected voice

Cheryl Cotton

100%flagged-word coverage
87 attributed words71% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+51.6 ptsWriter: 7.0%Cheryl Cotton: 58.6%58.6%Unattributed Quote-44.5 ptsWriter: 44.5%Cheryl Cotton: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Cheryl Cotton: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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