BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Framing Effect, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.5% saturation with 85 hits. Analysis detected 709 faulty-reasoning hits from 549 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (20,647 of 27,714 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.50% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON — Key senators unveiled a short-term spending bill on Sunday that would keep federal agencies funded past the midterm elections and into early December as they look to avoid a government shutdown during the middle of campaign season. 
The Senate is likely to vote on the measure before leaving Washington at week’s end for its traditional August recess, a period that many lawmakers want to spend shoring up their reelection prospects rather than working in the nation’s capital. 
The bill generally funds the federal government at current levels through Dec. 
11. 
The House has passed a similar measure, but it did not include various exceptions sought by the White House. 
Senators have been spending recent days negotiating which of those exceptions to include. 
One exception that did not make the cut, Democrats noted, was the administration's request to include $1 billion to build “Trump-class” battleships. 
A short-term funding extension is needed because Congress has struggled to get the dozen annual appropriations bills negotiated and approved before the Sept. 30 deadline. 
By extending government funding now, lawmakers can use the ensuing months to work out their differences on full-year funding. 
It won’t be an easy lift as Republicans seek a dramatic increase in defense spending while cutting non-defense spending. 
President Donald Trump proposed a 10 percent cut in non-defense programs overall. 
Meanwhile, he called for boosting defense spending by some 44 percent. 
A potential shutdown before voters go to the polls is a scenario that both parties are looking to avoid, as polling indicated that neither party evaded blame for last fall’s record 43-day shutdown. 
Democrats sought to extend an expiring health insurance tax credit and refused to go along with a short-term spending bill that did not include that priority. 
But Republicans said that was a separate policy fight to be held at another time. 
A second spending battle over funding for the Department of Homeland Security took 76 days to resolve when Democrats refused to fund U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Border Patrol without changes to those operations. 
Sen. 
Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Democratic senators are seeking to delay a proposed rule from the Trump administration related to grants. 
The rule would require a senior political appointee at each agency to review grant proposals through criteria that include “ensuring that discretionary awards advance the President's policy priorities.” 
Collins and Sen. 
Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said the rule would not take effect during the course of the stopgap spending bill. 
Collins said she advocated for significant changes to the rule, “citing its potential to politicize grants and harm small, rural communities, families, and biomedical research.” 
“While Republicans rejected killing the proposed rule outright, I’m going to keep fighting to put a stop to it once and for all, and I will keep pressing my Republican colleagues to do exactly that,” Murray said. 
Democrats fear Trump would turn the grants into a cudgel to punish perceived political foes and reward allies, while also undermining Congress's constitutional power of the purse. 
The White House Office of Management and Budget says its effort is about improving accountability to ensure that taxpayer dollars aren’t wasted or misused. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Kevin Freking: 0.9%The Columbian: 3.4%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.3%The Columbian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Kevin Freking: 2.7%The Columbian: 3.5%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%The Columbian: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%The Columbian: 0.8%Hindsight Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Kevin Freking: 8.7%The Columbian: 6.9%Framing Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%The Columbian: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.9%Kevin Freking: 1.0%The Columbian: 1.1%Status Quo Bias4.9%This article: 4.6%Kevin Freking: 0.3%The Columbian: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect4.6%This article: 10.2%Kevin Freking: 1.9%The Columbian: 2.7%Optimism Bias10.2%This article: 3.5%Kevin Freking: 2.0%The Columbian: 2.2%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 15.5%Kevin Freking: 5.9%The Columbian: 9.4%Negativity Bias15.5%This article: 4.7%Kevin Freking: 2.6%The Columbian: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%The Columbian: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 7.3%Kevin Freking: 0.3%The Columbian: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias7.3%This article: 7.3%Kevin Freking: 4.1%The Columbian: 0.5%In-Group Bias7.3%This article: 4.9%Kevin Freking: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%The Columbian: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.2%Kevin Freking: 1.5%The Columbian: 1.3%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%The Columbian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%The Columbian: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 2.0%The Columbian: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.2%Kevin Freking: 2.9%The Columbian: 1.2%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 4.9%Kevin Freking: 0.9%The Columbian: 1.3%Slippery Slope4.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.7%The Columbian: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%The Columbian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%The Columbian: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.6%Kevin Freking: 7.4%The Columbian: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion4.6%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%The Columbian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.0%Kevin Freking: 1.4%The Columbian: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%The Columbian: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%The Columbian: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%The Columbian: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.6%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Kevin Freking: 0.5%The Columbian: 2.6%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.4%The Columbian: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.4%Kevin Freking: 3.6%The Columbian: 5.6%Biased Writer Voice4.4%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.2%The Columbian: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%The Columbian: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%The Columbian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.2%The Columbian: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

549 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech463writer words
Selected voice

Susan Collins

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words29% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Susan Collins: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Susan Collins: 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.