Mashable⁠77%

Meet America's first new subsea habitat in 40 years ⁠36%

By Mashable Video⁠76%

8/3/2026, 5:38:02 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Anecdotal, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 73.8% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 146 faulty-reasoning hits from 65 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (19,632 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.20% of the article peer group.

Take a closer look at DEEP's subsea habitat Vanguard, the first new subsea habitat for humans designed, built and deployed in the US in decades. 
Meet the new humanoid with 'smart skin' (I touched it) 
Meet the world's fastest steam-powered rocketbike 
Inside the world's biggest bet on fusion energy 
Topics 
Documentaries 
Nature 
Innovations 
NASA 
Rocket Launches 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 3.7%Mashable: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 1.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Mashable Video: 7.3%Mashable: 2.6%Availability Heuristic13.8%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 3.0%Mashable: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Mashable Video: 18.2%Mashable: 4.6%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.3%Mashable Video: 7.9%Mashable: 3.5%Optimism Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 3.7%Mashable: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 4.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Mashable Video: 2.3%Mashable: 3.3%Halo Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 6.0%Mashable: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.3%Mashable Video: 1.1%Mashable: 2.7%Appeal to Authority12.3%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 4.3%Mashable: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%Mashable Video: 0.9%Mashable: 4.4%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.2%Mashable Video: 0.9%Mashable: 2.6%Appeal to Emotion9.2%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 3.7%Mashable: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.4%Mashable Video: 4.5%Mashable: 2.0%Anecdotal15.4%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.2%Mashable Video: 2.4%Mashable: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.2%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.4%Mashable Video: 1.4%Mashable: 1.1%Unattributed Quote15.4%This article: 15.4%Mashable Video: 1.4%Mashable: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection15.4%This article: 73.8%Mashable Video: 17.4%Mashable: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice73.8%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 0.0%Mashable: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mashable Video: 11.1%Mashable: 14.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

65 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.5%attributed speech64writer words
Selected voice

NASA

0%flagged-word coverage
1 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-75.0 ptsWriter: 75.0%NASA: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%NASA: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%NASA: 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.