Chalkbeat15%

Untitled article 54%

7/17/2026, 11:37:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.9% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 161 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.5% and a BS Rank of 54% (10,071 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 54.00% of the article peer group.

Prop NN proponents believe the time is right to raise funding for schools after failed efforts 
This closed Denver school building is the new home of a French immersion charter school 
More than $1.8 million raised in Chicago school board election, as contribution caps are lifted in race for board president 
NY families left $62 million in summer food benefits unspent last year. 
Here’s how to claim your $120 now. 
IPEC is about to pick its executive director. 
See the list of finalists. 
Record-high number of Indiana school districts ask voters for property tax increases 
New data reveals the depth of the teacher turnover crisis. 
Join Chalkbeat’s virtual event. 
Newark Public Schools teachers get creative as wildfire smoke cancels outdoor summer programs 
Philly has more English learners than ever, but they often struggle to graduate. 
Here’s what could help. 
Memphis school board election comes as legal battle continues over state takeover 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.5%Chalkbeat: 2.2%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Chalkbeat: 1.9%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 9.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.1%Chalkbeat: 4.6%Optimism Bias13.1%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.9%Chalkbeat: 10.0%Negativity Bias22.9%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.8%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.5%Chalkbeat: 2.4%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.5%Chalkbeat: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion6.5%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.8%Chalkbeat: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.0%Chalkbeat: 4.7%Biased Writer Voice17.0%This article: 4.6%Chalkbeat: 1.8%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chalkbeat: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Chalkbeat: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.5%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers16%attributed speech128writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageIPEC • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageChalkbeat • 4 words • 100.0% coverageNewark Public Schools • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chalkbeat

100%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words16% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +90.6 ptsWriter: 9.4%Chalkbeat: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.3 ptsWriter: 20.3%Chalkbeat: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.5 ptsWriter: 5.5%Chalkbeat: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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