Oil Prices Jumped and Stock Futures Fell on Renewed Iran Conflict ⁠75%

By The New York Times⁠0%

4/19/2026, 10:20:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 25.8% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 896 faulty-reasoning hits from 466 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠75% (5,457 of 21,179 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

Oil prices shot higher and stocks sank on Sunday evening after a weekend of renewed conflict around the Strait of Hormuz dampened hope that the waterway might soon reopen. 
Earlier on Sunday, a U.S. 
Navy destroyer attacked and seized an Iranian-flagged cargo ship that President Trump said had tried to evade the U.S. blockade on ships traveling to and from Iranian ports. 
And on Saturday, a day after Iran’s foreign minister declared the strait open, the country reversed course, reasserting “strict control” over it and attacking two Indian-flagged vessels. 
All of that happened after markets closed on Friday, meaning traders are only now digesting those developments. 
This is set to be a pivotal week in the war, now in its eighth week, with the cease-fire between the United States and Iran set to expire within days. 
Mr. 
Trump said the United States was sending a delegation to Pakistan for further negotiations with Iran, though it was not clear that Iran was on board. 
Also on Sunday, Energy Secretary Chris Wright acknowledged what analysts widely have been predicting: that Americans are unlikely to see gasoline prices return to prewar levels anytime soon. 
Here is the latest: 
Oil prices climbed. 
The price of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil, climbed more than 6 percent to around $96 a barrel. 
West Texas Intermediate crude, the U.S. benchmark, experienced a similar jump, rising to around $88 a barrel. 
Investors and analysts are focused on the continued disruption to shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow waterway between Iran and Oman that is a vital trading route for oil and natural gas and normally carries as much as one-fifth of the world’s oil supply. 
Notes: Data shows future contract prices for Brent crude oil. 
Gaps indicate nontrading hours. 
Data is delayed at least 15 minutes. 
Source: FactSet. 
The New York Times 
Stock futures pointed to a decline. 
Futures on the S&P 500 pointed to a 1 percent decline when stocks open for trading in the United States on Monday. 
The index has risen sharply in recent weeks and ended trading on Friday 3.6 percent higher than before the war began. 
Gasoline prices fell. 
Gas prices fell on Sunday to a national average of $4.05 a gallon, according to the AAA motor club. 
That is down from a recent high of $4.17 earlier in April. 
Still, drivers are paying about 36 percent more for gas than they were when the war began. 
Gas prices don’t move in lock step with crude, usually trailing increases or drops by a few days. 
Diesel prices have increased even more quickly and stood at $5.56 on Sunday, up 48 percent since the start of the war but down modestly from a week ago. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.7%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%The New York Times: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias8.8%This article: 15.7%The New York Times: 3.3%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 7.5%The New York Times: 1.1%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.6%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%The New York Times: 5.9%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 3.6%The New York Times: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.6%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.9%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%The New York Times: 3.5%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias18.2%This article: 20.4%The New York Times: 8.2%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 6.0%The New York Times: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%The New York Times: 1.6%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.7%The New York Times: 4.7%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority21.7%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%The New York Times: 2.1%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.3%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.7%The New York Times: 3.9%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.7%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.8%The New York Times: 1.6%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.8%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.4%The New York Times: 5.8%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote17.4%This article: 6.0%The New York Times: 1.2%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection6.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.2%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

466 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers23%attributed speech359writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Trump • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 26 words • 100.0% coverageChris Wright • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageFactSet • 2 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAAA motor club • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

President Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words26% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%President Trump: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+92.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%President Trump: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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