MS NOW⁠95%

'Conman as commander in chief': Jasmine Crockett on Trump’s economy⁠93%

12/26/2025, 2:00:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 59.6% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 238 faulty-reasoning hits from 57 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠93% (1,698 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.20% of the article peer group.

“People are signaling that they are not happy with anything that is going on, whether it's the tariffs or the other policies that are making it more difficult for our economy to sustain itself.” 
Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) sits down with Chris Hayes to discuss the public’s perception of Trump’s economy a year into his second term. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 59.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)59.6%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

57 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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