BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.4% saturation with 242 hits. Analysis detected 1,363 faulty-reasoning hits from 993 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,059 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.00% of the article peer group.

Hundreds of tankers are waiting to return to the Strait of Hormuz so that the waterway can once again become a conduit for a fifth of the world’s oil and gas. 
But the shaky cease-fire struck between the United States and Iran has not coaxed the tankers back  and even if it holds, other obstacles have to be overcome for shipping traffic to return to normal. 
Iran has kept a stranglehold on the strait throughout the war by laying mines and attacking vessels. 
As part of the cease-fire, Iran’s foreign minister said, the country will allow “safe passage” for ships through the strait, but he added that the vessels would have to coordinate with Iran’s armed forces and that passages would be subject to “technical limitations.” 
What is the situation in the strait now? 
Only five vessels traveled through the strait on Wednesday, according to Kpler, down from an average of about 10 a day over the previous five days. 
And shipping analysts said there were no signs of large-scale positioning or queuing to go through the strait. 
The fragility of the cease-fire  Iran said on Wednesday that Israel’s attacks on targets in Lebanon had violated the agreement  was the main reason ships were holding back, shipping industry participants said. 
“It’s too unstable for anyone to commit,” said Oscar Seikaly, chief executive of NSI Insurance Group, a maritime insurance brokerage. 
What has to happen first for ships to go back? 
First, shipping analysts say, there has to be confidence that the cease-fire will hold. 
And then there has to be a declaration from Iran that it will not attack vessels. 
“Iran must clarify that the strait is open for safe passage. 
Otherwise, vessels should not be expected to sail through the way they were doing prior to the war,” said Noam Raydan, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. 
But Iran is also demanding that it oversee and coordinate passages through the strait. 
The government hasn’t clearly stated what vessel operators must do to gain permission to pass through. 
Some shipowners have made “toll” payments to Iran. 
And, according to Kpler, a shipping tracking firm, most of the crossings during the war have taken a route that goes close to Iran’s coast. 
This suggests that Iran requires taking this route. 
Iran’s official broadcaster said on Wednesday that, because of anti-ship mines in the traffic zones, vessels must coordinate with the Iranian Navy and use designated routes to cross the waterway. 
Do governments have to get involved? 
The governments of India, Pakistan and Thailand have worked with Iran to ensure safe passage of vessels. 
In a joint statement on Wednesday, the leaders of seven European nations, Canada, the European Commission and the European Council said their governments “will contribute to ensuring freedom of navigation” in the strait. 
President Trump suggested on Wednesday that the United States might jointly control the strait with Iran. 
“The United States of America will be helping with the traffic buildup in the Strait of Hormuz,” Mr. 
Trump said in a social media post. 
“There will be lots of positive action! 
Big money will be made.” 
ABC News reported on Wednesday that Mr. 
Trump had told one of its reporters that the United States could operate shipping in the strait “as a joint venture” with Iran. 
Will shipping return if Iran doesn’t give up full control? 
Analysts say Iran can continue to act as a gatekeeper if the number of vessels going through the strait remains relatively small. 
But it would not be able to manage the more than 100 ships a day that passed through the strait before the war. 
“Blanket passage arrangements are unlikely to be implementable by Iran, due to capacity constraints around vessel identification and ongoing requirements to guide vessels through the corridor,” Jack Kennedy, head of Middle East and North Africa country risk at S&P Global Market Intelligence, said in an email. 
Also, the threat of war will linger if Iran keeps throttling the strait. 
The Persian Gulf states do not want Iran to have such power over the waterway. 
Oman, the country on the other side of the strait, could invite ships to pass close to its coastline, but such a move might prompt Iran to attack the vessels. 
Will shipping companies pay a toll to Iran? 
Given that more than 100 large commercial ships have gone through the strait since the war began, some vessel operators are willing to negotiate with Iran and even pay millions of dollars for a passage. 
Shipping companies are losing money on vessels that are waiting to go through the strait, so they may be willing to pay large sums to get their ships out into the Indian Ocean and operating normally. 
Still, the larger, more established shipping companies may decide that doing business with Iran is too much of a legal risk, particularly if the United States continues to impose sanctions on Iran. 
“The issue of sanctions on Iran makes it a very complicated process, since it involves financial transactions with a sanctioned regime,” Ms. 
Raydan said. 
In the attempts to forge a lasting peace, there will be pressure on Iran to give up any plan to demand payments for passages. 
Britain’s defense secretary, John Healey, said on Thursday that Britain and its allies wanted to see the strait “open, free, consistent with the long established laws of international navigation, without any sort of tolls for passage.” 
How hard is it to get insurance? 
When the fighting began, the cost of “war risk” insurance for ships and cargo going through the strait skyrocketed. 
A few shipping companies bought it, and it has been available at times during the war, Mr. 
Seikaly, the insurance executive, said. 
But the fragility of the cease-fire has driven down demand for insurance. 
“It is not the right moment, and everyone knows that,” he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.5%Peter Eavis: 1.3%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Peter Eavis: 2.9%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.8%Peter Eavis: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.8%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Peter Eavis: 3.7%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias2.2%This article: 6.1%Peter Eavis: 8.3%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 5.2%Peter Eavis: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Peter Eavis: 4.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias3.6%This article: 10.6%Peter Eavis: 2.8%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias10.6%This article: 15.9%Peter Eavis: 7.6%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 2.3%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Peter Eavis: 0.7%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 1.5%Peter Eavis: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Peter Eavis: 1.3%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%Peter Eavis: 5.5%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 1.6%Peter Eavis: 1.3%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma1.6%This article: 3.0%Peter Eavis: 0.9%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope3.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.8%Peter Eavis: 1.7%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization5.8%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.2%Peter Eavis: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon1.2%This article: 1.2%Peter Eavis: 2.5%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion1.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.8%Peter Eavis: 3.5%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.8%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 3.6%Peter Eavis: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.6%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 4.2%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.7%Peter Eavis: 1.1%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote10.7%This article: 0.7%Peter Eavis: 1.3%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 4.3%Peter Eavis: 2.9%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice4.3%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Eavis: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

993 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers29%attributed speech701writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKpler • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageOscar Seikaly • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNoam Raydan • 11 words • 100.0% coverageNoam Raydan • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKpler • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageEuropean Council • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageABC News • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJack Kennedy • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageNoam Raydan • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Healey • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageOscar Seikaly • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageOscar Seikaly • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Healey

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words12% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-13.6 ptsWriter: 13.6%John Healey: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%John Healey: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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