CNBC54%

Squawk on the Street Podcast 93%

8/1/2019, 7:30:19 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 90.3% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 453 faulty-reasoning hits from 103 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 88.1% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,592 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.70% of the article peer group.

The 11 a.m. 
ET hour previously known as CNBC Money Movers is now part of the Squawk on the Street podcast Follow and Listen Apple Podcasts Spotify Amazon Music TuneIn iHeartRadio About The Squawk on the Street Podcast CNBC's "Squawk on the Street" with Carl Quintanilla , Jim Cramer , David Faber and Sara Eisen is broadcast from the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, on site at the opening bell with the up-to-the-minute news investors need to know and interviews with the most influential Chief Executive Officers and greatest market minds. 
Squawk on the Street Disclaimer 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 87.4%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect87.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 87.4%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect87.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 87.4%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority87.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 90.3%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)90.3%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 87.4%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…87.4%

103 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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