Western earns 'Military Friendly Schools' recognition ⁠68%

By Michael Berry⁠4%

8/8/2026, 3:28:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Circular Reasoning, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.5% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 335 faulty-reasoning hits from 208 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (9,912 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.60% of the article peer group.

Western Wyoming College was recently recognized as a 2026-2027 Military Friendly® Schools Bronze School. 
According to Western, institutions earning the Military Friendly Schools® designation were evaluated using both public data sources and responses from a proprietary survey. 
Over 3,200 companies participated in the Military Friendly® survey. 
Methodology, criteria, and weightings were determined by Military Friendly®, in consultation with the Military Friendly® Advisory Council, a group of independent leaders in the military community. 
Final ratings were determined by combining an organization’s survey score, public data, and an assessment of the institution’s ability to meet and exceed thresholds for student recruitment, retention, academic progress, graduation rates, career placement, and support services for veterans, transitioning service members, and military spouses. 
“At Western, we recognize the leadership, resilience, and dedication that military-connected students bring to our campus,” said Mark Rembacz, Western’s AVP of Institutional Effectiveness. 
“Earning the Military Friendly® Bronze designation reflects our commitment to providing the support, resources, and opportunities they need to achieve their educational and career goals. 
We are proud to serve those who have served our country.” 
Western Wyoming College was showcased in the 2026-2027 Guide to Military Friendly Schools® in the April issue of G.I. 
Jobs ® magazine and on MilitaryFriendly.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.0%Michael Berry: 0.2%Wyo4News: 0.2%Confirmation Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.3%Wyo4News: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.6%Wyo4News: 0.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.3%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Michael Berry: 1.0%Wyo4News: 0.6%Overconfidence Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 1.0%Wyo4News: 1.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.6%Wyo4News: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.7%Michael Berry: 0.4%Wyo4News: 0.2%Status Quo Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.2%Wyo4News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Michael Berry: 2.1%Wyo4News: 2.5%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 1.0%Wyo4News: 0.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Michael Berry: 0.6%Wyo4News: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias12.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Michael Berry: 0.9%Wyo4News: 0.9%In-Group Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Michael Berry: 0.8%Wyo4News: 4.8%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Michael Berry: 0.4%Wyo4News: 0.3%Recency Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.5%Michael Berry: 2.1%Wyo4News: 1.5%Appeal to Authority24.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 12.5%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning12.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.4%Wyo4News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.8%Michael Berry: 1.8%Wyo4News: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion16.8%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.1%Wyo4News: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.2%Wyo4News: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.6%Wyo4News: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.7%Michael Berry: 1.7%Wyo4News: 6.4%Biased Writer Voice6.7%This article: 12.0%Michael Berry: 1.2%Wyo4News: 1.4%Indoctrination12.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Berry: 0.0%Wyo4News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Michael Berry: 1.1%Wyo4News: 5.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.9%

208 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker29%attributed speech148writer words
Selected voice

Mark Rembacz

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words100% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+41.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mark Rembacz: 41.7%41.7%Biased Writer Voice-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Mark Rembacz: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.1 ptsWriter: 4.1%Mark Rembacz: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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