The Metro: The push to quiet cars in the Motor City 33%

By Sam Corey41% The Metro41%

7/22/2026, 12:24:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 26.2% saturation with 38 hits. Analysis detected 187 faulty-reasoning hits from 145 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.4% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,773 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.50% of the article peer group.

The sound of music and engines is synonymous with summer in metro Detroit. 
But that noise, specifically the kind generated by modified cars, has been aggravating some people. 
Residents near Woodward have been complaining about cars being too loud, which has prompted legislators to push for a crackdown on motorists. 
So, what’s in their legislation? 
And, could it hurt car culture in the Motor City? 
Natalie Price is a Democratic state representative. 
Her district includes Berkley, Huntington Woods and Birmingham. 
She spoke with The Metro‘s Robyn Vincent. 
Hear the full conversation using the media player above. 
Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and stream on-demand. 
Never miss an episode  subscribe to The Metro on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, NPR, or wherever you get your podcasts. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Sam Corey: 3.0%WDET: 2.3%Availability Heuristic9.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Sam Corey: 7.4%WDET: 4.7%Framing Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Sam Corey: 2.3%WDET: 0.9%Pessimism Bias6.9%This article: 25.5%Sam Corey: 12.0%WDET: 3.4%Negativity Bias25.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 5.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.8%Sam Corey: 1.6%WDET: 3.3%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 5.1%WDET: 3.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.2%Sam Corey: 5.1%WDET: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 25.5%Sam Corey: 8.5%WDET: 0.8%Unattributed Quote25.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.0%Sam Corey: 3.0%WDET: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice9.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 2.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Corey: 0.0%WDET: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.2%Sam Corey: 17.5%WDET: 7.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.2%

145 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.