BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Biased Writer Voice, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 32.1% saturation with 51 hits. Analysis detected 319 faulty-reasoning hits from 159 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 37% (18,065 of 28,464 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.50% of the article peer group.

(CARE Department photo) 
Starting tomorrow, the crisis responders who are part of the city's CARE public-safety department are expanding their hours citywide. 
Here's the announcement: 
Effective tomorrow, August 5, the Seattle CARE Department’s Community Crisis Responders (CCRs) will operate from 6:30-1:00 AM daily, citywide. 
Current citywide service is from 12:00-10:00 PM daily. 
This expansion into the early morning and late night hours addresses a significant need for community support during windows of time when our call data shows the highest volume of calls that crisis responders can support, including welfare checks, requests for resources, and assistance with people who are experiencing a crisis. 
Approximately 84% of the responders’ most common call types come in between 6:30-1:00 AM. 
The public can continue to call 911 or the City’s non-emergency line (206-625-5011) to request the CCRs, including for welfare checks, referrals, and resources. 
Call-takers will determine the appropriate response based on the scenario. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 1.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.8%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 32.1%West Seattle Blog: 2.2%Availability Heuristic32.1%This article: 8.8%West Seattle Blog: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.8%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%West Seattle Blog: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 5.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 32.1%West Seattle Blog: 2.0%Loss Aversion32.1%This article: 5.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.8%Status Quo Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.9%West Seattle Blog: 2.0%Optimism Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 2.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 1.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%West Seattle Blog: 0.3%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 1.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 1.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 32.1%West Seattle Blog: 0.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.1%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.9%West Seattle Blog: 1.3%Unattributed Quote11.9%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 32.1%West Seattle Blog: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice32.1%This article: 8.8%West Seattle Blog: 2.2%Indoctrination8.8%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%West Seattle Blog: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

159 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech140writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Seattle CARE Department: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.4 ptsWriter: 36.4%Seattle CARE Department: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Seattle CARE Department: 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.