Oscar-winning actor Robert Duvall dies at 95⁠94%

By David Matthews⁠0%

2/16/2026, 10:31:52 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Anecdotal, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 86.7% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 279 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 89.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,399 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.60% of the article peer group.

Oscar-winning actor Robert Duvall, known for roles in Hollywood classics like “The Godfather” and “Apocalypse Now,” has died. 
He was 95 years old. 
The cinema titan died Sunday night at his Middleburg, Virginia, wife Luciana Duvall announced. 
“Yesterday we said goodbye to my beloved husband, cherished friend, and one of the greatest actors of our time,” she wrote, adding that he died “peacefully at home, surrounded by love and comfort.” 
This is a developing story. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%David Matthews: 6.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%David Matthews: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.7%This article: 24.0%David Matthews: 8.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic24.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 69.3%David Matthews: 14.9%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect69.3%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.0%David Matthews: 10.3%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias24.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 86.7%David Matthews: 6.9%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect86.7%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%David Matthews: 2.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias6.7%This article: 24.0%David Matthews: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect24.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 42.7%David Matthews: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority42.7%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 11.9%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 44.0%David Matthews: 14.6%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion44.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 44.0%David Matthews: 4.2%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal44.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 3.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 24.3%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 1.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Matthews: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

75 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.