Grasshopper Fire growth closes Highway 35 near Mount Hood 3%

By Zach Urness27%

8/6/2026, 6:30:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Negativity Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.7% saturation with 23 hits. Analysis detected 23 faulty-reasoning hits from 117 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 9.8% and a BS Rank of 3% (28,138 of 28,996 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.00% of the article peer group.

Oregon Highway 35 near Mount Hood was close the evening of Aug. 6 for roughly 15 miles in both directions due to the Grasshopper Fire, according to the Oregon Department of Transportation. 
The highway was closed between Bennett Pass and Baseline Road due to increased fire activity and very poor visibility due to the smoke, fire officials said. 
The highway is the main route between Mount Hood and Hood River. 
"Use an alternate route," ODOT posted in a note at 5:47 p.m. announcing the closure. 
Fire crews had been working hard to keep the 43,000-acre fire from crossing Highway 35 and it's not clear what prompted the closure. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.3%Statesman Journal: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.4%Statesman Journal: 1.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.6%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.0%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.9%Statesman Journal: 1.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.1%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.7%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.3%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.4%Statesman Journal: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 2.2%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Zach Urness: 8.0%Statesman Journal: 4.8%Negativity Bias19.7%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.4%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 2.1%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 4.5%Statesman Journal: 2.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.4%Statesman Journal: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.1%Statesman Journal: 1.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 2.1%Statesman Journal: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 2.1%Statesman Journal: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.7%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.7%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 1.1%Statesman Journal: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 2.1%Statesman Journal: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.7%Statesman Journal: 0.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.8%Statesman Journal: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.0%Statesman Journal: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zach Urness: 0.2%Statesman Journal: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

117 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker40%attributed speech70writer words
0%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words100% of attributed speech33% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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