Rare toad returns to Las Vegas spring for first time in almost 65 years  and he’s looking for love 52%

By Daniel Cody37%

7/19/2026, 12:40:52 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Nature, and Unattributed Quote, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 28.9% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 655 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.4% and a BS Rank of 52% (9,984 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.30% of the article peer group.

A rare toad species has resurfaced at the Springs Preserve in Las Vegas for the first time since approximately 1962, according to conservationists at the refuge. 
The newly found Woodhouse’s Toad is a male, which the preserve calls a “possible early colonist” who seems to be looking for love. 
It was caught on camera performing a mating call in the Cienega area of the preserve. 
“Our trail camera caught this lone adult male calling in the Cienega, possibly an early colonist… though no females have answered yet,” said the preserve in a Facebook post. 
“This appearance by our forlorn frog friend marks a big moment in local wildlife history.” 
One Facebook user claims that there’s hundreds of Woodhouse’s Toads in her yard every spring. 
“I've had them emerge and hop through my yard to get to the pond every spring,” she wrote. 
“If they're not hanging in the wetlands there’s something wrong with the ecology, lol. 
They're thriving over here.” 
Woodhouse’s Toads have not been recorded at the site since the original springs  a natural oasis, or “Cienaga,” for early settlers in Las Vegas  ran dry in 1962, when the toads were displaced or hybridized with Arizona Toads elsewhere in the Las Vegas Valley. 
The hybrid Arizona-Woodhouse’s toads replaced the species entirely in about 1976, making the recent discovery the first recorded appearance of the Woodhouse’s Toad in almost 65 years. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.6%Daniel Cody: 2.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias18.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Daniel Cody: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.7%Daniel Cody: 1.0%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Daniel Cody: 9.4%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect17.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.4%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Daniel Cody: 1.5%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias10.7%This article: 5.5%Daniel Cody: 1.1%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 5.9%Daniel Cody: 13.9%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 1.2%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 2.1%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.7%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.6%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.3%Daniel Cody: 3.3%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 5.5%Daniel Cody: 0.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Daniel Cody: 1.6%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.9%Daniel Cody: 0.6%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon5.9%This article: 13.8%Daniel Cody: 9.6%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion13.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 28.9%Daniel Cody: 3.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)28.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.4%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 23.7%Daniel Cody: 2.3%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature23.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.6%Daniel Cody: 6.1%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal14.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.8%Daniel Cody: 3.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.7%Daniel Cody: 5.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote21.7%This article: 5.9%Daniel Cody: 2.6%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 28.5%Daniel Cody: 11.1%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice28.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cody: 0.0%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech209writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSprings Preserve • 29 words • 100.0% coverageSprings Preserve • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Springs Preserve

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+53.5 ptsWriter: 12.4%Springs Preserve: 65.9%65.9%Biased Writer Voice+6.8 ptsWriter: 27.3%Springs Preserve: 34.1%34.1%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Springs Preserve: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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