Signs at California Chevron blame Dems for gas prices 73%

By Katie Jerkovich0%

5/21/2026, 7:38:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 132 hits. Analysis detected 1,516 faulty-reasoning hits from 407 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.4% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,642 of 20,382 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.30% of the article peer group.

Chevron is done being accused of driving California’s gas prices to the highest in the nation  and they aren’t afraid of the letting drivers know. 
The gas giant says blame rests with the Democrats running the state  not President Donald Trump  and they are telling drivers at the gas pump ahead of the Memorial Day holiday weekend. 
“Sacramento policies did this. 
Now you pay more,” the signs read at pumps across California, paid for by the oil giant, showing a blue SUV entangled in a gas hose for affect. 
“California politicians are choosing foreign oil and fuels over local jobs and lower costs.” 
Chevron is done being blamed for the back-breaking gas prices in California. 
Ross Allen, a spokesperson for Chevron, confirmed the signs came from the company. 
“We are trying to educate consumers about how politicians are picking their pockets,” Allen told The Post. 
“These environmental fees, taxes, and regulations might be small individually, but cumulatively they are making the cost of living in California much more expensive. 
These are policy choices, it doesn’t have to be like this.” 
And judging from the comments on social media, the signs are starting to have an impact with California’s drivers  with many pointing out they have seen they have seen about the issue. 
“Yeah Chevron had these posted for a while in North San Diego. 3 different signs,” one person wrote. 
The post included a shot of three signs, including the one mentioned above. 
One said that “Nearly 25% of your gas money goes to state taxes and fees.” 
Another mentioned: “California has the highest gas taxes and fees in America.” 
“Chevron has deployed these signs for months across the state to highlight California’s unique burdens like high excise taxes (over 60 cents/gallon), cap-and-trade fees, Low Carbon Fuel Standard costs, and refinery closures under strict regulations,” another person wrote. 
The post included a photo of the sign from above just smaller. 
In recent years, several major oil refineries in California have closed or begun the process of closing, only increasing gas prices in California. 
Lawmakers and experts have warned Gov. 
Gavin Newsom’s green agenda now risks sending the price of a gallon above $8 per gallon. 
Drivers in the Golden State pay a “California premium” that includes higher-than-average state excise and sales taxes, as well as hefty fees for climate programs unique to the state. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.6%Katie Jerkovich: 2.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias20.6%This article: 3.9%Katie Jerkovich: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias3.9%This article: 14.0%Katie Jerkovich: 5.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic14.0%This article: 9.3%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.3%Katie Jerkovich: 13.8%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect28.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.7%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias12.3%This article: 32.4%Katie Jerkovich: 14.4%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 9.3%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 3.7%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Katie Jerkovich: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.4%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.3%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.7%Katie Jerkovich: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority4.7%This article: 14.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma14.0%This article: 3.9%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope3.9%This article: 5.9%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning5.9%This article: 6.6%Katie Jerkovich: 5.6%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 25.1%Katie Jerkovich: 11.2%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion25.1%This article: 7.1%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question7.1%This article: 16.0%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.5%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof1.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 28.7%Katie Jerkovich: 7.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal28.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.1%Katie Jerkovich: 2.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 26.3%Katie Jerkovich: 5.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote26.3%This article: 19.4%Katie Jerkovich: 2.5%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection19.4%This article: 18.9%Katie Jerkovich: 10.1%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice18.9%This article: 15.2%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination15.2%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Katie Jerkovich: 2.9%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.3%This article: 13.3%Katie Jerkovich: 3.5%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.3%

407 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech342writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageRoss Allen • 13 words • 100.0% coverageRoss Allen • 17 words • 100.0% coverageRoss Allen • 24 words • 100.0% coverageRoss Allen • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ross Allen

100%flagged-word coverage
65 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+44.6 ptsWriter: 12.3%Ross Allen: 56.9%56.9%Indoctrination+33.1 ptsWriter: 9.9%Ross Allen: 43.1%43.1%Unattributed Quote-31.3 ptsWriter: 31.3%Ross Allen: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.5 ptsWriter: 22.5%Ross Allen: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.8 ptsWriter: 15.8%Ross Allen: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Ross Allen: 0.0%0.0%

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.