BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 71.8% saturation with 188 hits. Analysis detected 1,093 faulty-reasoning hits from 262 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99.2% and a BS Rank of 99% (310 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.60% of the article peer group.

In the early 1930s, the Australian government lost a war against emus , and its present war, this time on tobacco, is heading the same way. 
Excessive taxation in the name of public health has backfired in extraordinary fashion, helping create a massive black market in tobacco products. 
This has led to an effective transfer to criminal gangs of billions of dollars of revenue previously earned by the legal tobacco industry, and a corresponding significant drop in excise tax revenue collected by the government, unprecedented violence between those gangs as they scrap over money and territory, and, to top it all off, an increase in the consumption of tobacco and nicotine. 
The tobacco wars, as this gang-related violence has been called , may attract the headlines, but they are downstream of the government’s public policy failures. 
Indeed, the government should also be considered one of the belligerents in the fighting—and it urgently needs to rethink its strategy. 
The government’s approach so far is emblematic of Australia’s regnant style of governing, which might be called technocratic wowserism . 
It is, essentially, a determination to use law and policy for the purported moral improvement of the public, rather than to support their established customs and ways of life. 
In recent years, this moralistic tendency, ever-present in this most utilitarian of countries , has run rampant, with increasingly perverse results. 
The story of how Australia came to have a gang war over a product as commonplace as tobacco is therefore broadly instructive about the decline of this once prosperous and happy country. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 41.2%Andrew Bushnell: 19.8%Quillette: 5.9%Confirmation Bias41.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 8.0%Quillette: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 3.7%Quillette: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 8.0%Quillette: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Andrew Bushnell: 16.5%Quillette: 7.5%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 4.1%Quillette: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.6%Andrew Bushnell: 15.0%Quillette: 1.4%Pessimism Bias20.6%This article: 71.8%Andrew Bushnell: 48.1%Quillette: 9.3%Negativity Bias71.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Andrew Bushnell: 5.9%Quillette: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error9.5%This article: 8.0%Andrew Bushnell: 2.7%Quillette: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 2.5%Quillette: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Andrew Bushnell: 2.7%Quillette: 1.1%Recency Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 5.1%Quillette: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 7.4%Quillette: 2.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 11.1%Andrew Bushnell: 3.7%Quillette: 2.9%False Dilemma11.1%This article: 9.9%Andrew Bushnell: 3.3%Quillette: 1.3%Slippery Slope9.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 3.2%Quillette: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.0%Andrew Bushnell: 26.8%Quillette: 9.1%Hasty Generalization24.0%This article: 9.5%Andrew Bushnell: 3.2%Quillette: 0.3%Red Herring9.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.6%Andrew Bushnell: 13.2%Quillette: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion7.6%This article: 8.0%Andrew Bushnell: 5.5%Quillette: 1.5%Begging the Question8.0%This article: 51.9%Andrew Bushnell: 42.6%Quillette: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)51.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 24.0%Andrew Bushnell: 8.0%Quillette: 0.7%Burden of Proof24.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 12.2%Andrew Bushnell: 8.1%Quillette: 0.7%Composition/Division12.2%This article: 12.2%Andrew Bushnell: 4.1%Quillette: 3.2%Anecdotal12.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%Andrew Bushnell: 2.7%Quillette: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 39.7%Andrew Bushnell: 57.9%Quillette: 13.8%Biased Writer Voice39.7%This article: 28.6%Andrew Bushnell: 16.3%Quillette: 1.6%Indoctrination28.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 1.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Bushnell: 0.0%Quillette: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

262 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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