How people in Iran feel after living through months of war ⁠67%

By Cascade PBS Staff⁠66%

7/31/2026, 5:15:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 62.7% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 121 faulty-reasoning hits from 67 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (8,866 of 26,476 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.50% of the article peer group.

The war in Iran has entered its sixth month, and the toll continues to grow. 
The UN reports that more than 2,500 children have been killed or injured in Iran alone. 
Amna Nawaz discussed the situation with Yeganeh Torbati, a reporter for The New York Times whose work has focused on the lives of ordinary Iranians. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.7%Cascade PBS: 3.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.9%Cascade PBS: 4.5%Availability Heuristic23.9%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.5%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 12.7%Cascade PBS: 12.9%Framing Effect16.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.9%Cascade PBS: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 62.7%Cascade PBS Staff: 22.5%Cascade PBS: 22.5%Negativity Bias62.7%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.2%Cascade PBS: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.7%Cascade PBS: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.8%Cascade PBS: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.9%Cascade PBS: 2.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 37.3%Cascade PBS Staff: 7.3%Cascade PBS: 7.2%Appeal to Authority37.3%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.6%Cascade PBS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 6.2%Cascade PBS: 6.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.5%Cascade PBS: 1.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.9%Cascade PBS Staff: 3.6%Cascade PBS: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion23.9%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.3%Cascade PBS: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.1%Cascade PBS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.4%Cascade PBS: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.9%Cascade PBS: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.0%Cascade PBS: 3.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.5%Cascade PBS: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.2%Cascade PBS: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.4%Cascade PBS Staff: 11.3%Cascade PBS: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 2.4%Cascade PBS: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.4%Cascade PBS: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 0.0%Cascade PBS: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cascade PBS Staff: 1.2%Cascade PBS: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

67 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker37%attributed speech42writer words
Selected voice

Amna Nawaz

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.2 ptsWriter: 26.2%Amna Nawaz: 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.