Extinct species: News, features and articles 88%

By Live Science Staff0%

2/18/2011, 11:00:28 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 80.4% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 700 faulty-reasoning hits from 107 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 81.1% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,619 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.00% of the article peer group.

Most species that ever lived on Earth are now extinct, with the planet having experienced at least five mass extinction events. 
Live Science brings you expert coverage of extinction as researchers uncover fossils and gain new insights into ancient animals — and track the sixth mass extinction event that appears to have begun. 
So whether you're after facts about dodos and dinosaurs, curious about extinct animals that could be brought back to life, or want to know what living animals could be gone by 2050, our writers and editors have you covered with the news, features and articles about extinct species. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.6%Live Science Staff: 2.3%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias19.6%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 44.9%Live Science Staff: 16.4%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic44.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 50.5%Live Science Staff: 12.7%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect50.5%This article: 44.9%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion44.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 44.9%Live Science Staff: 6.7%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias44.9%This article: 74.8%Live Science Staff: 8.9%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias74.8%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 1.3%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 29.9%Live Science Staff: 3.6%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias29.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.9%Live Science Staff: 28.0%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority29.9%This article: 44.9%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma44.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.6%Live Science Staff: 2.3%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization19.6%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 44.9%Live Science Staff: 10.7%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion44.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 5.8%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 29.9%Live Science Staff: 3.6%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)29.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 50.5%Live Science Staff: 34.0%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice50.5%This article: 44.9%Live Science Staff: 22.2%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination44.9%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 80.4%Live Science Staff: 50.4%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…80.4%

107 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker30%attributed speech75writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLive Science • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Live Science

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +28.0 ptsWriter: 72.0%Live Science: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-72.0 ptsWriter: 72.0%Live Science: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-64.0 ptsWriter: 64.0%Live Science: 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.