CNBC⁠54%

CNBC Changemakers and Power Players ⁠82%

9/22/2025, 9:21:19 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 50.5% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 201 faulty-reasoning hits from 95 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (3,991 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.80% of the article peer group.

Follow and Listen Apple Podcasts Spotify Amazon Music IHeartRadio About CNBC Changemakers and Power Players 
The CNBC Changemakers and Power Players podcast delivers candid, in-depth interviews with trailblazing women in business. 
Hosted by CNBC Senior Media & Tech Correspondent Julia Boorstin, the series spotlights women from the CNBC Changemakers list and other female innovators who are redefining leadership, breaking barriers, and transforming industries. 
From tech and finance to sports and design, these visionaries tackle today's toughest challenges, creating lasting impact. 
Follow and listen to discover the strategies behind their success. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.5%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias10.5%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: 44.2%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect44.2%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: 17.9%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias17.9%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: 50.5%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect50.5%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: 33.7%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority33.7%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: 17.9%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization17.9%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: 10.5%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question10.5%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: 0.0%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 26.3%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.3%

95 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech58writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
CNBC • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJulia Boorstin • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Julia Boorstin

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words86% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -43.1 ptsWriter: 43.1%Julia Boorstin: 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.