Diver survives after being bitten by nearly 7-foot shark in Australia: ‘Pretty good bite’ 16%

By Ella Morrison0%

7/19/2026, 12:50:49 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Negativity Bias, with Representativeness Heuristic as the most egregious example at 18.2% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 248 faulty-reasoning hits from 203 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32% and a BS Rank of 16% (17,857 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.

A deep-sea diver is counting his lucky stars after surviving a shark attack off the coast of Australia over the weekend. 
The 31-year-old was bitten on the forearm by a shark measuring over 6-and-a-half feet in length off the coast of Tasmania, Australia shortly after 9 a.m. 
Saturday, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation reported. 
Tasmanian authorities say the man was diving with two other individuals approximately 165 feet off the shore of Adventure Bay at a depth of 26 feet when he was bitten by what is believed to be a broadnose sevengill shark. 
The victim, who has not been identified, was brought to shore by fellow divers and then airlifted to the Royal Hobart Hospital with non-life-threatening injuries, according to Inspector Darren Latham with the Tasmania Police. 
The diver is in stable condition, according to police. 
According to Black, broadnose sevengill sharks are “generally regarded as harmless, but will come belligerent in situations where there is feed in the water or where there is a stimulus, such as fish blood, in the water.” 
Since the attack on Saturday, police say there have been no further sightings of the shark. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 18.2%Ella Morrison: 6.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic18.2%This article: 7.9%Ella Morrison: 2.6%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Ella Morrison: 4.6%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Ella Morrison: 8.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Ella Morrison: 3.4%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias10.3%This article: 10.3%Ella Morrison: 3.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.2%Ella Morrison: 12.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority18.2%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.9%Ella Morrison: 2.6%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.9%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.2%Ella Morrison: 8.4%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote18.2%This article: 6.9%Ella Morrison: 6.9%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.9%This article: 10.3%Ella Morrison: 9.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice10.3%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ella Morrison: 0.0%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

203 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers70%attributed speech61writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAustralian Broadcasting Corporation • 6 words • 0.0% coverageTasmanian authorities • 40 words • 0.0% coverageInspector Darren Latham • 34 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBlack • 37 words • 100.0% coveragepolice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Black

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words26% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Black: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.4 ptsWriter: 34.4%Black: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-23.0 ptsWriter: 23.0%Black: 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.