Engadget42%

Apple is reportedly planning a visual refresh of the entry-level MacBook Pro next year 41%

By Anna Washenko55%

7/1/2026, 10:52:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Representativeness Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 29.2% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 757 faulty-reasoning hits from 271 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.4% and a BS Rank of 41% (13,079 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.80% of the article peer group.

Mark Gurman is back with a new report in Bloomberg about how Apple's device lineup may be evolving over the next 12 months. 
Sources told the reporter that the company aims to present an overhaul of the baseline MacBook Pro in the first half of 2027. 
The 14-inch entry-level laptop will reportedly sport a new design that aligns with the look of the higher-end computers likely to be announced starting in the fall. 
Gurman suggests that lineup will include Apple's first touchscreen MacBook, which had previously been rumored for the M6 laptop generation. 
In addition to the new entry-level laptop, Apple is reportedly testing out four new iPad Pro models. 
Although specifics of the new tablets were not shared, sources suggested that the next round of iPads would focus on features for improving performance while retaining the current size options of 11 inches and 13 inches. 
Spring is becoming the time when Apple makes more announcements for its entry-level and budget products, and even sometimes pulls off the occasional surprise. 
In spring 2026, we got the MacBook Neo alongside a new iPhone, iPads and MacBook Pros over the course of a week. 
Even without the potential addition of five products, spring 2027 was looking to be similarly chock full of news from Apple. 
On the smartphone side, we were already expecting to hear about the base model of the iPhone 18 and an update to the iPhone Air. 
It could also be when Apple breaks from its Pro and Max tradition and skips straight to M7 silicon. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.7%Anna Washenko: 4.3%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias17.7%This article: 15.1%Anna Washenko: 1.1%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias15.1%This article: 16.2%Anna Washenko: 4.0%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic16.2%This article: 23.2%Anna Washenko: 1.0%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic23.2%This article: 7.4%Anna Washenko: 1.4%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.7%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 6.4%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.2%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.9%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 21.0%Anna Washenko: 5.7%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias21.0%This article: 7.7%Anna Washenko: 2.7%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 9.3%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.0%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.1%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.0%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.8%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 25.5%Anna Washenko: 3.2%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias25.5%This article: 8.1%Anna Washenko: 1.2%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.3%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.4%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.0%Anna Washenko: 4.3%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority17.0%This article: 7.0%Anna Washenko: 2.2%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma7.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 2.7%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.0%Anna Washenko: 9.4%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization21.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.1%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.2%Anna Washenko: 1.1%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon9.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 4.2%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 7.4%Anna Washenko: 1.3%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 18.1%Anna Washenko: 4.4%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.6%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.7%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.0%Anna Washenko: 4.4%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal17.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 3.2%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.5%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.2%Anna Washenko: 5.0%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote29.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.8%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.2%Anna Washenko: 11.4%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 1.6%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Washenko: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Anna Washenko: 2.9%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.3%

271 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech228writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageMark Gurman • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMark Gurman • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Gurman

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+20.6 ptsWriter: 25.9%Mark Gurman: 46.5%46.5%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Mark Gurman: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.1 ptsWriter: 6.1%Mark Gurman: 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.