Pentagon identifies third US soldier killed in weekend attack by Iran ⁠18%

By Samuel Chamberlain⁠63%

7/21/2026, 12:52:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.9% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 189 faulty-reasoning hits from 137 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠18% (17,499 of 21,182 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.60% of the article peer group.

An American soldier killed while destroying a downed Iranian drone in northern Iraq Sunday has been identified, according to the Pentagon. 
Sgt. 
Michael Emmanuel Swinton, 30, of Fayetteville, NC, died as a result of a mishap during a controlled detonation at Erbil Air Base. 
Swinton is one of three US forces confirmed to have died over the weekend as a result of the intesnsifying war with Iran. 
On Monday, the War Department identified Pvt. 
Isabella Gonzales, 19, of Carrollton, Texas, and First Lt. 
Tyler James Feehan, 25, of Ewa Beach, Hawaii, as victims of a July 17 Iranian missile strike on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in eastern Jordan. 
The American death toll since the beginning of Operation Epic Fury Feb. 28 stands at 17 service members. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.8%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.5%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias16.8%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.6%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 7.2%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Samuel Chamberlain: 8.1%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect16.8%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 5.2%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.9%Samuel Chamberlain: 8.4%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias29.9%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.4%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.7%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.0%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.9%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.1%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.4%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.0%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.4%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 9.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.8%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.8%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.3%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.5%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.1%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.8%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.1%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.2%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.3%Samuel Chamberlain: 3.1%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote15.3%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 2.3%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.1%Samuel Chamberlain: 6.6%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice13.1%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 1.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.1%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samuel Chamberlain: 0.2%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

137 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers69%attributed speech42writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Pentagon • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Emmanuel Swinton • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWar Department • 7 words • 0.0% coverageIsabella Gonzales • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTyler James Feehan • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words23% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.9 ptsWriter: 42.9%Michael Emmanuel Swinton: 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.