BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Status Quo Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with In-Group Bias as the most egregious example at 41.8% saturation with 82 hits. Analysis detected 446 faulty-reasoning hits from 196 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.4% and a BS Rank of 73% (4,693 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.10% of the article peer group.

It’s rare for anyone to donate a kidney, and most of the time, the organ goes to someone close to the donor, like a spouse, a sibling or a parent. 
Altruistic kidney donation  the kind Lane did  is when you give the organ to a complete stranger. 
That kind of gift is even rarer, so much so that lots of people question the motives of the donor. 
Lane herself went through a rigorous screening to become eligible for the procedure. 
Along the way, she learned the history of kidney donation and met others who’ve made the choice to give a kidney to someone they’d never know or meet. 
Again and again, she encountered the same idea: It’s not a question of why anyone would give away a kidney, it’s why wouldn’t you? 
Penny Lane joins us to talk about her film. 
We’re screening “Confessions of a Good Samaritan” in partnership with the Utah Film Center on Wednesday, March 11, at 7 p.m. 
Tickets are free but you’ll need to RSVP. 
You’ll find the details here. 
GUEST 
Penny Lane is a documentary filmmaker. 
She has produced eight feature documentaries, including “Confessions of a Good Samaritan.” 
Confirmation Bias
14.3%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
15.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
12.2%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
15.3%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
10.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
10.2%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
41.8%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
10.7%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
12.2%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
13.8%
False Dilemma
12.2%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
10.2%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
12.2%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
12.2%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
14.3%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
10.2%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

196 words analyzed.

Analysis

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