BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 174 faulty-reasoning hits from 225 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.7% and a BS Rank of 11% (27,243 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.10% of the article peer group.

Three women face murder and child endangerment charges in the death of a 7-year-old boy in Oakley on Thursday. 
Early Friday, Aug. 
7, Cincinnati police identified the boy as William Evans. 
Cincinnati and Norwood police arrived at the home in the 2800 block of Madison Road about 1 p.m. 
Aug. 6 for report of a possible disturbance and found the boy unresponsive. 
The Cincinnati Fire Department personnel determined Willian was dead, police said in a news release Friday. 
The three women who face charges are Nessa Keaney, 23, Kaitlin Evans, 38, and Kirby Rankin, 33. 
It is not clear how they are connected to William. 
No information was released on the how William died. 
Complaints filed in court on the child endangerment charges state William was "mentally handicapped." 
Chris Papa and his wife for two years have lived across the street from the home where William was found dead. 
On Thursday, as police conducted the investigation, he said he'd seen people from the home walking a dog a couple of times a week, but it wasn't always the same people walking the dog. 
He'd never seen a child on those walks. 
Police ask anyone with information to call the homicide unit at 513-352-3542. 
Enquirer reporter Gillian Stawiszynski contributed. 
This report will be updated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.1%Cheryl Vari: 0.9%The Enquirer: 1.5%Confirmation Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.6%The Enquirer: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Cheryl Vari: 1.7%The Enquirer: 1.8%Availability Heuristic13.3%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Cheryl Vari: 0.2%The Enquirer: 0.4%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 6.2%Cheryl Vari: 0.3%The Enquirer: 1.7%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.8%The Enquirer: 1.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.2%Cheryl Vari: 2.0%The Enquirer: 4.0%Negativity Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Cheryl Vari: 0.3%The Enquirer: 1.5%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Cheryl Vari: 0.2%The Enquirer: 1.7%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.6%The Enquirer: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.2%Cheryl Vari: 0.3%The Enquirer: 1.3%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.4%The Enquirer: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 0.0%The Enquirer: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cheryl Vari: 2.1%The Enquirer: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

225 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers32%attributed speech153writer words
Selected voice

Chris Papa

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words58% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Chris Papa: 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.