BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 19.6% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 301 faulty-reasoning hits from 398 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.6% and a BS Rank of 40% (12,302 of 20,497 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.00% of the article peer group.

Stock futures were relatively unchanged on Sunday after the three major averages posted weekly losses. 
S&P 500 futures traded down 0.1%, while Nasdaq-100 futures traded around the flatline. 
Futures linked to the Dow Jones Industrial Average were lower by 84 points, or 0.2%. 
The three leading U.S. indexes closed in the red last week, as pressure on chip stocks weighed on sentiment. 
The S&P 500 dropped 1.6%, while the Nasdaq Composite sank 2.9%, and the 30-stock Dow lost 0.9%. 
Additionally, the VanEck Semiconductor ETF (SMH) saw its third weekly decline in four weeks, losing nearly 9%. 
Jonathan Krinsky, chief market technician at BTIG, believes there may be even more declines in store for semiconductors from here. 
"They could certainly bounce here in the short term, but we don't see signs of kind of that real big washout that you're looking for," he told CNBC's "Closing Bell: Overtime" Friday. 
"It's probably too soon if you just think about two weeks ago, really, we had record volumes on the upside for names like Micron and the like, so I think it's probably premature to look for a bottom there." 
Traders continued to monitor the conflict in the Middle East, with tensions between the U.S. and Iran ramping up over the weekend. 
U.S. military forces on Sunday attacked Iran for the eighth night in a row while Iran stepped up airstrikes on American bases in the region. 
The escalation in hostilities placed increasing strain on the fragile truce between the two countries. 
The U.S. 
Central Command said a third service member had been killed during the recent fighting. 
American forces also "found unidentified remains" near the site of an Iranian attack in Jordan on July 17 that saw two killed, Centcom said. 
The U.S. is working to identify the remains. 
Oil futures rose following the developments. 
U.S. 
West Texas Intermediate futures were last up 3% to trade above $85 per barrel, while international benchmark Brent crude futures gained 3% to above $91 a barrel. 
Traders are also awaiting the latest batch of earnings set to drop this week. 
"Magnificent Seven" members Alphabet and Tesla are among those to report, doing so after the bell on Wednesday. 
Intel  which recorded a 13% drop last week amid the drawdown in chip prices  is slated to release on Thursday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Sean Conlon: 9.8%CNBC: 1.8%Anchoring Bias9.8%This article: 4.8%Sean Conlon: 1.6%CNBC: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Sean Conlon: 3.2%CNBC: 6.7%Framing Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 6.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Sean Conlon: 10.4%CNBC: 2.2%Pessimism Bias13.1%This article: 12.6%Sean Conlon: 11.6%CNBC: 6.9%Negativity Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Sean Conlon: 1.5%CNBC: 3.0%Halo Effect4.5%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 19.6%Sean Conlon: 16.3%CNBC: 2.3%Recency Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Sean Conlon: 3.4%CNBC: 5.1%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 1.5%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.5%CNBC: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 2.7%CNBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 1.1%CNBC: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Conlon: 0.0%CNBC: 5.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

398 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers32%attributed speech269writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Krinsky • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Krinsky • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJonathan Krinsky • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Central Command • 14 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Central Command • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jonathan Krinsky

100%flagged-word coverage
91 attributed words71% of attributed speech56% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.