Asking Eric: Boyfriend has to defer college and wants girlfriend to stay behind with him ⁠6%

By R Eric Thomas⁠26%

7/22/2026, 3:00:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 38.5% saturation with 30 hits. Analysis detected 30 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠6% (20,761 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.90% of the article peer group.

Advice on relationships, family, work and everyday life with practical, compassionate guidance and a touch of humor. 
Asking Eric: Boyfriend has to defer college and wants girlfriend to stay behind with him 
By R Eric Thomas | eric@askingeric.com | Tribune Content Agency 
PUBLISHED: July 22, 2026 at 6:00 AM EDT 
Subscribe to continue reading this article. 
Already subscribed? 
To log in, click here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.9%Baltimore Sun: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.8%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.9%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.9%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 6.2%Baltimore Sun: 5.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.3%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.9%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 6.0%Baltimore Sun: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.5%Baltimore Sun: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 4.1%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.0%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 8.2%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 38.5%R Eric Thomas: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…38.5%

78 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech55writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageR Eric Thomas • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTribune Content Agency • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTribune Content Agency • 2 words • 100.0% coverageTribune Content Agency • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words57% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +69.1 ptsWriter: 30.9%Tribune Content Agency: 100.0%100.0%

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.