NPR⁠84%

Mikaela Shiffrin, Breezy Johnson and the future of U.S. women's skiing⁠91%

By NPR⁠63%

2/5/2026, 5:15:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Overconfidence Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 45.2% saturation with 76 hits. Analysis detected 316 faulty-reasoning hits from 121 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,034 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.70% of the article peer group.

Journalist Michael Scherer had a lofty goal for his profile of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. 
He wanted to “help narrow the political divide” separating the country. 
Scherer thought that the key was understanding how Kennedy had morphed from an environmental activist and proud Democrat into a MAGA insider, serving as Donald Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services. 
But Scherer’s relationship with Kennedy was tense. 
They’d argue about scientific studies, and RFK believes everything written about him is pretty much the same — and unfair. 
Still, he and Scherer spent a lot of time together. 
The result is a detailed portrait of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the man who Scherer says is a Rorschach test for how Americans understand “the populist furies riling the country.” 
He joins us to talk about why RFK is so convinced he’s right. 
GUEST 
Michael Scherer is a staff writer for The Atlantic. 
His story is called “Why is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., So Convinced He’s Right?” 
You can read it here: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/2026/01/rfk-jr-public-health-science/684948/ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.0%NPR: 4.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias31.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 4.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 1.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%NPR: 2.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias16.1%This article: 45.2%NPR: 6.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect45.2%This article: 0.0%NPR: 1.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%NPR: 4.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%NPR: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%NPR: 8.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias11.9%This article: 11.9%NPR: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 2.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 3.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem11.9%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 5.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 2.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.9%NPR: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization11.9%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 5.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 16.1%NPR: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question16.1%This article: 0.0%NPR: 2.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 4.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.9%NPR: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.9%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 3.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NPR: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

168 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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