STAT⁠44%

The moment Anthropic convinced me it’s serious about science ⁠71%

By Brittany Trang⁠82%

7/1/2026, 3:11:47 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 37.8% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 257 faulty-reasoning hits from 127 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (6,545 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the article peer group.

You’re reading the web edition of STAT’s AI Prognosis newsletter, our subscriber-exclusive guide to artificial intelligence in health care and medicine. 
Sign up to get it delivered in your inbox every Wednesday. 
For the last several weeks my friend and I have been obsessed with the daily game Multiplet, which, when you complete the puzzle, pops up a message saying “You just did organic chemistry without crying.” 
It’s by far the best chemistry-inspired game, and dare I say it’s better than Wordle or Connections. 
The instructions are a bit confusing, but you’ll get the hang of it by playing the test puzzles. 
This newsletter will be off next week, but I’ll be back in your inboxes July 15. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 7.1%STAT: 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.8%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 3.6%STAT: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 2.2%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.2%STAT: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Brittany Trang: 8.1%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias14.2%This article: 16.5%Brittany Trang: 6.4%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.8%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 2.4%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.6%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.4%Brittany Trang: 15.8%STAT: 3.3%Optimism Bias13.4%This article: 12.6%Brittany Trang: 1.3%STAT: 1.8%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.8%STAT: 8.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 2.6%STAT: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Brittany Trang: 3.9%STAT: 1.3%Halo Effect16.5%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 3.0%STAT: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 3.7%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.5%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.6%Brittany Trang: 9.0%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority23.6%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.5%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.5%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.4%Brittany Trang: 14.2%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization13.4%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.4%Brittany Trang: 1.4%STAT: 0.4%Bandwagon13.4%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.1%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 2.4%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 2.8%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.5%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 27.6%Brittany Trang: 5.1%STAT: 3.3%Anecdotal27.6%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 5.6%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 3.1%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 1.6%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.4%Brittany Trang: 6.6%STAT: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice13.4%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.9%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brittany Trang: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 37.8%Brittany Trang: 13.8%STAT: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…37.8%

127 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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