BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 63.4% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 404 faulty-reasoning hits from 82 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.5% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,662 of 21,145 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.40% of the article peer group.

After a deadly school shooting in Tacloban, Philippines, the government has temporarily banned the video game Gorebox because one of the teenage suspects allegedly played it. 
Two boys opened fire in a classroom, killing three students and wounding 20 others. 
Police say one of the shooters was "heavily influenced" by content online, including the game, which lets players use weapons and explosives in a virtual world. 
The government wants to investigate if it played a role in the attack. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 35.7%Reason.com: 4.6%Confirmation Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 27.7%Reason.com: 2.4%Availability Heuristic31.7%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 63.4%Charles Oliver: 16.8%Reason.com: 6.2%Framing Effect63.4%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.9%Charles Oliver: 4.0%Reason.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 48.8%Charles Oliver: 12.2%Reason.com: 8.0%Negativity Bias48.8%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 7.9%Reason.com: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 15.9%Reason.com: 3.9%Appeal to Authority31.7%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 19.8%Reason.com: 6.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 4.0%Reason.com: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 63.4%Charles Oliver: 59.5%Reason.com: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)63.4%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 47.6%Charles Oliver: 11.9%Reason.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof47.6%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 7.9%Reason.com: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 7.9%Reason.com: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)31.7%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 7.9%Reason.com: 1.9%Unattributed Quote31.7%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 15.9%Reason.com: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection31.7%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 8.8%Reason.com: 10.1%Biased Writer Voice31.7%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 31.7%Charles Oliver: 7.9%Reason.com: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%Charles Oliver: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

82 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.