NY Post⁠89%

Novice climber, 31, survives 1,500-foot fall down Mount Shasta ⁠36%

By Pierce Sharpe⁠0%

7/1/2026, 9:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Anchoring Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 33.6% saturation with 76 hits. Analysis detected 531 faulty-reasoning hits from 226 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (13,231 of 20,472 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.60% of the article peer group.

A novice climber somehow survived a terrifying 1,500-foot tumble down California’s Mount Shasta on Sunday — astonishing rescuers who found her awake and conscious after the massive fall. 
The 31-year-old woman was climbing the Left of Heart variation of the mountain’s popular Avalanche Gulch route with two other novice climbers when she plunged from about 13,000 feet to 11,500 feet, according to the US Forest Service. 
Low cloud cover prevented a CHP helicopter from reaching the injured climber directly, forcing rescuers to land nearby and make the rest of the journey on foot. 
Climbing rangers reached the woman with help from one member of her climbing party, who descended the mountain carrying rescue equipment. 
Another climber in the area also stopped to help and remained with the group throughout the rescue. 
After treating her on the mountainside, climbing rangers and members of her party carefully lowered her to Lake Helen in a rescue litter. 
Around 5:30 p.m., a CHP helicopter hoisted the injured climber from Lake Helen and flew her to Mercy Medical Center Mount Shasta for further treatment. 
The US Forest Service reminded climbers that Mount Shasta’s conditions can change rapidly and urged anyone attempting a summit to carry proper mountaineering equipment, check weather and route conditions, climb with experienced partners and have an emergency plan. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 3.1%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Pierce Sharpe: 0.6%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias16.8%This article: 16.4%Pierce Sharpe: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic16.4%This article: 9.3%Pierce Sharpe: 2.5%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Pierce Sharpe: 11.3%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect20.8%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.5%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.4%Pierce Sharpe: 2.1%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Pierce Sharpe: 9.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 1.0%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Pierce Sharpe: 19.3%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 1.9%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.1%Pierce Sharpe: 2.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 33.6%Pierce Sharpe: 6.6%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority33.6%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.5%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 2.3%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.4%Pierce Sharpe: 8.7%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion16.4%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.3%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.9%Pierce Sharpe: 1.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.9%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 16.8%Pierce Sharpe: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof16.8%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.4%Pierce Sharpe: 2.4%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal12.4%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 2.8%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 1.1%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.4%Pierce Sharpe: 13.6%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 16.8%Pierce Sharpe: 2.7%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination16.8%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 1.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pierce Sharpe: 0.0%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

226 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech150writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageUS Forest Service • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageUS Forest Service • 38 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

US Forest Service

100%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+50.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%US Forest Service: 50.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-24.7 ptsWriter: 24.7%US Forest Service: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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