How well did you follow St. Louis-area news this year? Take our 2025 news quiz97%

12/19/2025, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 45.7% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 397 faulty-reasoning hits from 173 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.9% and a BS Rank of 97% (514 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.90% of the article peer group.

A devastating tornado, the birth of the St. Louis Zoo's newest Asian elephant, and the federal indictment of St. Louis Sheriff Alfred Montgomery were some of the biggest stories of 2025. 
It's been quite a year. 
Donald Trump retook the presidency. 
People grew more excited  and more anxious  about AI. 
Everyone was humming along to Sabrina Carpenter's "Manchild." 
KPop Demon Hunters went wild. 
But that's the national news. 
Lots of things happened in the St. Louis area, and you remember them all. 
Right? 
Put that memory to the test with STLPR's 2025 year-in-news quiz. 
Can you score 90% or better? 
If you do, email a screenshot of your results to social@stlpr.org by December 31 for a chance to win a STLPR hoodie or mug. 
(Full disclosure: We will sign you up for our daily Gateway Newsletter.) 
How well did you do? 
If you want to improve your score for the 2026 edition, sign up for the Gateway Newsletter  essential St. Louis-area news sent straight to your inbox every weekday morning. 
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
20.8%
Availability Heuristic
13.9%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Confirmation Bias
0.6%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Framing Effect
45.7%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Hindsight Bias
11%
Horn Effect
0%
In-Group Bias
2.9%
Loss Aversion
6.9%
Negativity Bias
17.9%
Optimism Bias
31.2%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
12.7%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Recency Bias
2.9%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
2.9%
Anecdotal
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
Appeal to Emotion
31.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Begging the Question
0.6%
Burden of Proof
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Composition/Division
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Hasty Generalization
11%
Middle Ground
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
17.3%
Red Herring
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Straw Man
0%
Tu Quoque
0%

173 words analyzed.

Analysis

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