BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26.3% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,367 faulty-reasoning hits from 562 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.6% and a BS Rank of 62% (11,162 of 28,957 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 61.50% of the article peer group.

Conservative advocacy group Concerned Women for America (CWA) sent a letter to the U.S. 
Senate on July 28 urging members of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions to vote against SB 2511, or the College Transparency Act (CTA). 
“The CTA is fundamentally antithetical to Americans’ reasonable expectation that the federal government is not tracking their life choices,” CWA President Penny Nance said in the letter. 
The bill, which is pending in the committee, states it aims to create a college student federal database to bring transparency to “federal aid” and “provide accurate  information for students and families making decisions about postsecondary education.” 
But CWA believes it “tramples on the privacy rights of every American college student” by enabling the federal government to collect private data on college-educated American citizens while attending university and for years after they leave post-secondary education. 
Current federal law states that the kind of database SB 2511 creates is illegal, the letter says, because it invades personal privacy rights. 
The letter notes that Sec. 134 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 has specifically prohibited: 
the development, implementation, or maintenance of a Federal database of personally identifiable information on individuals receiving assistance under this chapter, attending institutions receiving assistance under this chapter, or otherwise involved in any studies or other collections of data under this chapter, including a student unit record system, an education bar code system, or any other system that tracks individual students over time. 
SB 2511 would repeal this section, even though the bill also states it will “ensure data privacy and security is consistent with any relevant Federal law relating to privacy or data security.” 
CWA warns that the act will allow the government to “continue to track students after graduation and as they begin their careers, with no opportunity at any point to opt in or out, and with no ability to know what information the database has stored.” 
The College Transparency Act does not specify the specific information it would collect, stating that, among tracking data on race, age, gender, income, and major, it will track “other data elements that are necessary in accordance with” an earlier clause that allows the gathering of “additional data elements.” 
Students' information will also be shared with other federal agencies  including the Social Security Administration, the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of War, and the Census Bureau  according to section 3 of the bill. 
“Federal databases are ripe for abuse. 
Not only do they make Americans vulnerable to the abuses of government overreach and a mismanaged bureaucracy, but they can also be used by foreign adversaries,” Nance wrote in the letter, referring to recently declassified information purportedly showing how China accessed 220 million U.S. voter files. 
A mesh of 14 Republican and 12 Democrat senators are sponsoring the bill that increases government surveillance “at a time when the Trump Administration is, rightfully, seeking to decrease federal involvement in education,” Nance states in the letter. 
CWA recognizes that higher education needs “colleges to be more transparent in their operations,” but “the CTA wants to make students’ information transparent to colleges, not colleges transparent to the public. 
Exploiting postsecondary students with a database that will track their personal information for years, even decades, beyond college is the wrong answer,” the letter says. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.6%Hannah Bates: 6.3%The Federalist: 8.3%Confirmation Bias20.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Hannah Bates: 6.1%The Federalist: 3.3%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Hannah Bates: 19.7%The Federalist: 9.8%Framing Effect19.0%This article: 11.2%Hannah Bates: 4.2%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion11.2%This article: 6.8%Hannah Bates: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.5%Status Quo Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Hannah Bates: 3.3%The Federalist: 1.6%Pessimism Bias17.3%This article: 26.3%Hannah Bates: 14.6%The Federalist: 11.5%Negativity Bias26.3%This article: 5.5%Hannah Bates: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 2.4%The Federalist: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 2.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Hannah Bates: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.1%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.7%Hannah Bates: 2.0%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man5.7%This article: 6.8%Hannah Bates: 2.4%The Federalist: 4.5%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 5.5%Hannah Bates: 3.0%The Federalist: 2.5%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 8.0%Hannah Bates: 6.3%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope8.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.7%Hannah Bates: 8.4%The Federalist: 10.7%Hasty Generalization16.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.8%Hannah Bates: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon6.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 10.5%The Federalist: 7.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 9.3%Hannah Bates: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.7%Begging the Question9.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.3%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.1%Hannah Bates: 0.7%The Federalist: 1.0%Burden of Proof4.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.1%Hannah Bates: 0.2%The Federalist: 2.6%Anecdotal1.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.2%Hannah Bates: 5.0%The Federalist: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.8%Hannah Bates: 1.5%The Federalist: 2.9%Unattributed Quote4.8%This article: 4.8%Hannah Bates: 1.3%The Federalist: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 13.2%Hannah Bates: 3.3%The Federalist: 18.6%Biased Writer Voice13.2%This article: 4.4%Hannah Bates: 2.0%The Federalist: 4.7%Indoctrination4.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Hannah Bates: 12.6%The Federalist: 15.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Bates: 0.3%The Federalist: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

562 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers58%attributed speech237writer words
Selected voice

Penny Nance

100%flagged-word coverage
117 attributed words36% of attributed speech25% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Politically Right Leaning +27.8 ptsWriter: 4.6%Penny Nance: 32.5%32.5%Unattributed Quote+23.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Penny Nance: 23.1%23.1%Quote-first Misdirection+23.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Penny Nance: 23.1%23.1%Biased Writer Voice-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Penny Nance: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.