CNBC54%

Oil gains over 2% as Mideast tensions and Hormuz toll prospects raise supply worries 50%

By Lee Ying Shan75%

7/14/2026, 12:32:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 24.1% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 607 faulty-reasoning hits from 282 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.1% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,025 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.40% of the article peer group.

Oil prices rose on Tuesday after U.S. 
President Donald Trump announced plans to impose shipping fees in the Strait of Hormuz and reinstate a blockade of Iranian ports, raising concerns over potential disruptions to global crude supplies. 
U.S. 
West Texas Intermediate futures for August delivery rose 2.27% to $79.91 per barrel. 
International benchmark Brent crude futures for September delivery gained 2.14% to $85.11, extending gains after advanced 9.6% in the previous session. 
Trump said Monday that the U.S. will levy fees on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz , charging "at the rate of 20% on all cargo shipped," after describing the United States as the "guardian" of the vital oil transit route. 
In a post on Truth Social, Trump also announced that Washington would reinstate its blockade of Iranian ports near the strait, further escalating the conflict with Tehran. 
U.S. 
Central Command later said the blockade would take effect at 4 p.m. 
ET on Tuesday. 
Citi warned that Trump's proposal to impose shipping fees in the Strait of Hormuz materially raises the risk of further military escalation. 
"The possibility that the Iranian regime walks away from the MoU until after the mid-term US elections has also risen, a scenario which would most likely see higher for longer oil prices," the bank wrote in a report published early Tuesday. 
Roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies passed through the Strait of Hormuz before the U.S. and Israel launched strikes on Iran on Feb. 
28. 
Shipping traffic slumped after Iran began targeting vessels in the waterway in early March, but had started to recover following Washington and Tehran's interim agreement. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 6.2%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Lee Ying Shan: 1.4%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias14.5%This article: 18.4%Lee Ying Shan: 8.7%CNBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic18.4%This article: 8.2%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 5.9%CNBC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 5.5%CNBC: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Lee Ying Shan: 11.1%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect19.5%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Lee Ying Shan: 3.1%CNBC: 2.1%Pessimism Bias24.1%This article: 22.3%Lee Ying Shan: 8.8%CNBC: 6.4%Negativity Bias22.3%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 2.6%CNBC: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Lee Ying Shan: 6.6%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.5%Lee Ying Shan: 5.2%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority14.5%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 5.9%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 1.3%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Lee Ying Shan: 2.5%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 14.5%Lee Ying Shan: 2.5%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question14.5%This article: 19.5%Lee Ying Shan: 9.8%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.5%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 2.6%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.2%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division8.2%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Lee Ying Shan: 0.7%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 2.6%CNBC: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 5.9%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.6%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice15.6%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Lee Ying Shan: 0.0%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

282 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers61%attributed speech109writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 41 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCentral Command • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageCiti • 22 words • 0.0% coverageCiti • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Citi

100%flagged-word coverage
63 attributed words36% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Citi: 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.