Engadget⁠42%

I Quite Fancy A Slate EV In A Crayola Crayon Color ⁠84%

By Daniel Cooper⁠71%

7/9/2026, 12:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Loss Aversion, and Appeal to Emotion, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 46.7% saturation with 122 hits. Analysis detected 515 faulty-reasoning hits from 261 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,563 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.70% of the article peer group.

EVs and Transportation 
I quite fancy a Slate EV in a Crayola crayon color 
The barebones automaker has teamed up with the legendary crayon brand. 
July 9, 2026 8:00 am EST 
Up to this point, Slate's barebones EV has adopted Henry Ford's maxim about having it any color you like so long as it's black grey(-ish). 
But if you were looking to snag the affordable electric truck with something a little different, you can thanks to the company's new partnership with Crayola. 
The pair are introducing five wraps in (apparently) famous Crayola colors for you to show the world your true colors. 
Those five shades are Cerulean (blue), Dandelion (yellow), Fern (green), Razzmatazz (pink) and Jersey Tomato (no prizes for guessing this one). 
Early on, Slate said it designed the truck to be wrapped as part of the extensive customization options on top of the base model. 
If you opt for one of the Crayola starter packs, you'll not only get the wrap, but a key fob cap, clip-on dashboard Slatelet (a little custom icon doodad) and complimentary decals. 
If you want to get in line for such an offer, you'll need to pre-order your vehicle by dropping the necessary $300 deposit. 
After that, you can head to the Slate Marketplace and pick out your desired color, which will set you back $1,550. 
As for me, I'm wondering if I'd prefer one in Dandelion or Fern, since it's not that often you see a lush green SUV on the roads. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 3.5%Engadget: 3.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Daniel Cooper: 1.6%Engadget: 1.4%Anchoring Bias9.6%This article: 10.3%Daniel Cooper: 3.2%Engadget: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 10.3%Daniel Cooper: 1.0%Engadget: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 1.0%Engadget: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 1.2%Engadget: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Daniel Cooper: 6.1%Engadget: 6.0%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 12.3%Daniel Cooper: 2.0%Engadget: 1.0%Loss Aversion12.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.5%Engadget: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Daniel Cooper: 2.1%Engadget: 4.6%Optimism Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 3.7%Engadget: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 4.7%Engadget: 7.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 3.7%Engadget: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Daniel Cooper: 1.6%Engadget: 1.9%Halo Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 1.4%Engadget: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Daniel Cooper: 0.9%Engadget: 0.4%Primacy Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.5%Engadget: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.6%Daniel Cooper: 4.4%Engadget: 4.9%Appeal to Authority9.6%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.5%Engadget: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 3.3%Engadget: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.3%Daniel Cooper: 5.1%Engadget: 5.3%Hasty Generalization10.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.3%Engadget: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 1.9%Engadget: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.9%Daniel Cooper: 10.5%Engadget: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion11.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.8%Engadget: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.8%Engadget: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.9%Engadget: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 1.5%Engadget: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.7%Daniel Cooper: 3.0%Engadget: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.2%Daniel Cooper: 3.5%Engadget: 2.9%Unattributed Quote9.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.9%Engadget: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.8%Daniel Cooper: 15.1%Engadget: 7.5%Biased Writer Voice18.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Cooper: 0.0%Engadget: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 46.7%Daniel Cooper: 17.2%Engadget: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…46.7%

261 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.2%attributed speech237writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSlate • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Slate

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Slate: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -51.5 ptsWriter: 51.5%Slate: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Slate: 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.