Newsday30%

At-home Lyme disease tests  for ticks  hitting market this month 39%

By Newsday Studios43% File Footage38%

8/6/2026, 2:14:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Nature, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 35.3% saturation with 18 hits. Analysis detected 114 faulty-reasoning hits from 51 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.3% and a BS Rank of 39% (18,284 of 29,795 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.40% of the article peer group.

The test represents the latest effort to combat Lyme, the most common tick-borne disease in the United States. 
NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa spoke with local experts on what you can do to prevent this disease. 
Credit: Newsday Studios; File Footage 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 15.9%Newsday: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 4.0%Newsday: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%Newsday Studios: 13.8%Newsday: 2.4%Availability Heuristic31.4%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%Newsday Studios: 9.9%Newsday: 4.5%Framing Effect31.4%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 35.3%Newsday Studios: 4.0%Newsday: 1.2%Optimism Bias35.3%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.9%Newsday: 8.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 23.5%Newsday Studios: 1.6%Newsday: 1.5%Recency Bias23.5%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 2.7%Newsday: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 1.9%Newsday: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 9.9%Newsday: 2.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 12.1%Newsday: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 35.3%Newsday Studios: 2.4%Newsday: 0.0%Appeal to Nature35.3%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 35.3%Newsday Studios: 10.2%Newsday: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice35.3%This article: 31.4%Newsday Studios: 2.2%Newsday: 0.3%Indoctrination31.4%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Newsday Studios: 0.0%Newsday: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

51 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker31%attributed speech35writer words
Selected voice

NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words100% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-51.4 ptsWriter: 51.4%NewsdayTV's Ken Buffa: 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.