BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 12% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 787 faulty-reasoning hits from 541 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.3% and a BS Rank of 52% (10,536 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.90% of the article peer group.

Northern Water will pay $30 million over the next 30 years to solve long-standing clarity and water quality problems at one of Colorado’s most treasured natural wonders, Grand Lake. 
Under the terms of the agreement, the giant water provider will spend $1 million annually to test and implement new solutions to the problem, including weed control, aeration and sediment removal. 
The deal is the first time a dedicated source of money has been set aside to help the lake, Northern Water spokesperson Jeff Stahla said. 
Grand Lake is a key element of Northern Water’s Colorado-Big Thompson delivery system, which provides water to more than 1 million people on the northern Front Range and thousands of acres of irrigated farmlands. 
Owned by the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation and operated by Northern Water, The C-BT gathers water from the Upper Colorado River, and stores it in two holding pools built by the federal government: Lake Granby and Shadow Mountain Reservoir. 
From there it is eventually moved into Grand Lake and delivered via the Adams Tunnel under the Continental Divide to Carter Lake, west of Berthoud, and Horsetooth Reservoir, west of Fort Collins. 
During that process, algae, certain toxins and sediment are carried into Grand Lake, clouding its formerly clear waters and causing algae blooms and weed growth, and harming recreation. 
In 2008, the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission moved to set a clarity standard, but it has since been replaced with a clarity goal and the aim of achieving “the highest level of clarity attainable.” 
Since then, Northern Water and others have implemented different management techniques, including changing pumping patterns, to find ways to improve water quality in all three water bodies. 
Still the lake is plagued by infusions of warm, murky water during the summer and algae blooms that harm its recreational value, locals say. 
Mike Cassio, president of the Three Lakes Watershed Association and a long-time Grand Lake advocate, said the new agreement was the only way the local interests could see to move forward, given what they say is an imbalance of power between the federal government and Northern Water, and the people of Grand County. 
“The Bureau of Reclamation has estimated that replumbing and fixing Grand Lake is a $1 billion project and it would take a congressional mandate to fund it,” Cassio said. 
“Is this agreement the best that we have? 
Probably. 
Is anybody up for a fight with Northern and the Bureau? 
Probably not. 
So the best thing to do is to work together.” 
In addition to the $30 million, the new agreement also expands the governing body overseeing the work to include the town of Grand Lake, which will for the first time have an official role in how the three-lake system is managed, Stahla said. 
The Colorado River District, which represents 15 Western Slope counties, signed off on the deal this week, saying via email that the new agreement would provide a strong foundation for future work on the lake. 
Other signers to the agreement include Grand County, the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, Northern Water, and the town of Grand Lake. 
It must still be signed by the U.S. 
Bureau of Reclamation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Jerd Smith: 3.6%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Anchoring Bias5.4%This article: 5.0%Jerd Smith: 1.7%The Colorado Sun: 2.2%Availability Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.2%Jerd Smith: 0.1%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.2%This article: 12.0%Jerd Smith: 9.8%The Colorado Sun: 3.6%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.3%Jerd Smith: 3.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Status Quo Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Jerd Smith: 4.4%The Colorado Sun: 4.2%Optimism Bias5.4%This article: 0.4%Jerd Smith: 0.2%The Colorado Sun: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.4%This article: 9.6%Jerd Smith: 8.1%The Colorado Sun: 5.7%Negativity Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 7.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Jerd Smith: 3.3%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error9.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Jerd Smith: 6.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Jerd Smith: 1.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Jerd Smith: 7.3%The Colorado Sun: 3.0%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 11.8%Jerd Smith: 10.5%The Colorado Sun: 0.8%False Dilemma11.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.4%Jerd Smith: 0.1%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Hasty Generalization0.4%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.1%Jerd Smith: 1.4%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 9.8%Jerd Smith: 3.3%The Colorado Sun: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion9.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.2%Jerd Smith: 1.7%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.4%Jerd Smith: 4.4%The Colorado Sun: 1.7%Anecdotal4.4%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%Jerd Smith: 1.2%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Middle Ground1.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.5%Jerd Smith: 3.5%The Colorado Sun: 1.6%Unattributed Quote10.5%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.1%Jerd Smith: 4.6%The Colorado Sun: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice6.1%This article: 9.8%Jerd Smith: 3.3%The Colorado Sun: 1.2%Indoctrination9.8%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jerd Smith: 0.0%The Colorado Sun: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

541 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers45%attributed speech300writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Stahla • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coveragelocals say • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMike Cassio • 53 words • 100.0% coverageMike Cassio • 29 words • 100.0% coverageMike Cassio • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMike Cassio • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMike Cassio • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMike Cassio • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMike Cassio • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Stahla • 43 words • 0.0% coverageColorado River District • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Cassio

93%flagged-word coverage
114 attributed words47% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+46.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mike Cassio: 46.5%46.5%Unattributed Quote+16.1 ptsWriter: 9.3%Mike Cassio: 25.4%25.4%Biased Writer Voice-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Mike Cassio: 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.