US stocks drift in mixed trading as oil prices climb amid war 33%

By Associated Press60%

7/22/2026, 7:40:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Slippery Slope, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17.4% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 401 faulty-reasoning hits from 730 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.2% and a BS Rank of 33% (14,838 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.80% of the article peer group.

By STAN CHOE, AP Business Writer 
NEW YORK (AP)  U.S. stock indexes barely budged on Wednesday after oil prices climbed another 3% as fighting continues in the war with Iran. 
The S&P 500 edged down by 0.1%, coming off its best day in three weeks. 
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped 6 points, or less than 0.1%, and the Nasdaq composite fell 0.6%. 
Despite the modest moves for indexes, stocks had some big swings underneath the surface. 
Philip Morris International rallied 3.3% after the seller of Marlboro cigarettes reported stronger profit and revenue for the latest quarter than expected. 
Its shipments of smoke-free products rose 7.5%. 
AT&T climbed 3.5% after reporting a stronger profit than analysts expected. 
CEO John Stankey also said the telecom is accelerating plans to send roughly $10 billion to its shareholders this year through the buybacks of its stock. 
Super Micro Computer soared 19.8% after the seller of AI servers said it expects to report stronger profit margins for the latest quarter than it had earlier forecast. 
It, though, also said that revenue will likely come in at the low end of its forecasted range of $11 billion to $12.5 billion. 
On the losing side of the market was GE Vernova, which fell 8.7% after reporting a weaker profit for the latest quarter than analysts expected. 
Alphabet sank 1.5% ahead of its earnings report, which arrived after trading ended for the day. 
Anticipation was high, and not just because the parent company of Google is one of the largest stocks on Wall Street. 
It’s also one of the biggest spenders on artificial-intelligence technology. 
Investors are looking for signs that the deluge of dollars going into processors, computer memory and other building blocks of the AI boom are producing enough profits to make the investments worth it. 
If Alphabet and other “hyperscalers” say that isn’t the case, stocks of chip companies and other AI winners would look very expensive following their monumental moves higher. 
Such worries have kept AI stocks at the center of Wall Street’s swings for weeks, and they helped drag the market up and down Wednesday. 
Micron Technology swung between a loss of 3.6% and a gain of 1.2% before finishing with a drop of 1.2%. 
That’s after it jumped 14.4% in the first two days of this week to reclaim nearly all its 13.3% plunge from the week before. 
It’s still up 236% for the year so far. 
All told, the S&P 500 fell 10.24 points to 7,498.96. 
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped 6.06 to 52,218.58, and the Nasdaq composite sank 146.30 to 25,690.90. 
Stocks broadly also felt pressure from continuing climbs for oil prices, which raise costs for most businesses and erode their profits. 
The price for a barrel of Brent crude oil, the international standard, rose 3.4% to $94.07 and briefly topped $95 in the morning to touch its highest level in nearly six weeks. 
That’s up from less than $72 early this month, which is roughly where it was before the war with Iran. 
Rising oil prices are threatening a reacceleration of inflation. 
That in turn could push the Federal Reserve and other central banks to raise interest rates, which would slow economies and undercut prices for stocks and other investments. 
The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 4.65% from 4.63% late Tuesday and from just 3.97% before the war with Iran began. 
It’s already helped bring long-term U.S. mortgage rates to their highest levels in nearly a year. 
Oil prices have climbed as fighting in the Middle East keeps oil tankers from using the Strait of Hormuz to exit the Persian Gulf. 
Normally, a fifth of all oil and natural gas traded passes through the narrow strait. 
The auto club AAA said Wednesday that the average price for a gallon of regular gas in the U.S. jumped again overnight to $4.06. 
That’s still below highs of around $4.56 per gallon in May, but it had been below $3 before the United States and Israel attacked Iran in late February. 
In stock markets abroad, indexes climbed in Europe following a mixed session in Asia. 
London’s FTSE 100 rose 1.2%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 1% for two of the world’s bigger moves. 
AP Business Writers Yuri Kageyama and Matt Ott contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%Baltimore Sun: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Associated Press: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 2.9%Associated Press: 3.2%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Availability Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 7.1%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Associated Press: 2.1%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Optimism Bias1.2%This article: 5.1%Associated Press: 1.6%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 1.9%Associated Press: 8.7%Baltimore Sun: 5.2%Negativity Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.3%Baltimore Sun: 3.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Associated Press: 1.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.4%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.7%Associated Press: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 5.1%Associated Press: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Slippery Slope5.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Associated Press: 2.7%Baltimore Sun: 3.6%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 4.7%Baltimore Sun: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.4%Associated Press: 2.2%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.3%Associated Press: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Unattributed Quote3.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.0%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Baltimore Sun: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 4.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

730 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.3%attributed speech706writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAAA • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

AAA

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%AAA: 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.