BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.1% saturation with 165 hits. Analysis detected 814 faulty-reasoning hits from 433 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.7% and a BS Rank of 55% (14,013 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.20% of the article peer group.

The author writes , “An indigenous community in Indonesia has found a way to protect one of the world’s rarest cockatoos without abandoning a sacred, centuries-old tradition, according to new research published in the Journal of Ethnobiology . 
The study documents how the Huaulu people worked with conservation researchers and government authorities to adapt the ceremony to save the endangered salmon-crested cockatoo.” 
From the Associated Press : “American oil and gas giants raked in massive spring profits while fighting between Iran and the U.S. impeded petroleum shipments and consumers around the world paid more for fuel and confronted shortages. 
The conflict, now in its sixth month, halted most shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow waterway that previously served as a delivery route for a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas. 
With global supplies constrained, prices for Brent crude, the international standard, soared from about $70 to above $100 a barrel for much of March, April and May, and at one point reached $126.” 
The author writes , “President Trump’s proposed 250-foot-tall triumphal arch would change the skyline of Washington to such an extent that it would intrude on views at dozens of historic sites around the capital, according to an assessment by National Park Service staff. 
It would disrupt the symbolic relationship between the Lincoln Memorial and Arlington National Cemetery, obstruct sightlines from the Kennedy Gravesite and Robert E. 
Lee’s home, and alter what official documents call ‘one of the most magnificent’ views in Washington at the National Cathedral four miles away, the Park Service said.” 
From The Guardian : “For generations, support for Israel was central to Jewish-American identity. 
But today, amid accusations that Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, a growing generational and political divide is reshaping views in the US Jewish community. 
Matthew Cassel travels to New York City  the heart of Jewish-American life  to explore how Israel’s wars across multiple fronts are challenging long-held traditions and dividing families.” 
The authors write , “On Sunday, the Federal Communications Commission issued an important update clarifying how its national security restrictions on equipment from certain foreign companies apply to robots. 
The update may be broader than it first seemed. 
In addition to banning the import of new models of humanoid robots that walk and dance, the language could also apply to household devices like robot vacuums and other mobile technology.” 
From Inside Climate News : “A 60-year mystery has been solved as researchers discover a coral ecosystem on the Benin-Togo continental shelf that is still teeming with marine life.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.6%WhoWhatWhy: 6.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Anchoring Bias7.6%This article: 6.7%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 2.5%Availability Heuristic6.7%This article: 3.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias2.1%This article: 18.9%Whowhatwhy Editors: 5.5%WhoWhatWhy: 5.6%Framing Effect18.9%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.8%WhoWhatWhy: 3.0%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 8.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.7%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 38.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 12.8%WhoWhatWhy: 13.3%Negativity Bias38.1%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.7%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.7%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.7%WhoWhatWhy: 4.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.7%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.3%WhoWhatWhy: 2.5%Appeal to Authority18.7%This article: 13.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.7%WhoWhatWhy: 2.1%False Dilemma13.2%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.2%WhoWhatWhy: 9.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.1%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Composition/Division3.2%This article: 6.7%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 2.4%Anecdotal6.7%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.7%Whowhatwhy Editors: 7.6%WhoWhatWhy: 2.2%Unattributed Quote18.7%This article: 15.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.8%WhoWhatWhy: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection15.2%This article: 1.4%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 16.3%Biased Writer Voice1.4%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.4%WhoWhatWhy: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

433 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers39%attributed speech264writer words
Selected voice

Associated Press

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words22% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Associated Press: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-30.7 ptsWriter: 30.7%Associated Press: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Associated Press: 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.