BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.3% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 854 faulty-reasoning hits from 556 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61% and a BS Rank of 68% (7,177 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.20% of the article peer group.

US cancels automatic protections for imperiled animals as critics warn of extinctions 
BILLINGS, Mont. 
(AP)  The U.S. 
Interior Department on Friday canceled a rule meant to protect plants and animals that are determined to be threatened with extinction, the latest step by President Donald Trump’s administration to dismantle key provisions of the landmark Endangered Species Act at the behest of industry. 
Instead of receiving automatic protections, imperiled species will need individualized protection plans once they are added to the threatened species list. 
That’s a potentially lengthy process in which companies could seek exemptions for oil and gas drilling, mining and other development where those species live. 
Opponents said it would make it harder to save wildlife that’s awaiting federal protections and in danger of disappearing, such as monarch butterflies and alligator snapping turtles. 
Officials made similar changes during Trump’s first term but they were reversed under former Democratic President Joe Biden. 
The rules that gave what some consider “blanket protections” to threatened species were first adopted for wildlife in 1975 and for plants in 1977. 
Two groups, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation and the Property and Environment Research Center, sued the Biden administration in 2024 after officials restored the blanket protections rule. 
They argued the rule unfairly imposed the same restrictions on landowners when a species’ status improves from endangered, which is more dire, to threatened. 
Wood said the Trump administration’s approach allows officials to “better reward progress and encourage proactive conservation.” 
There have been no species added to the endangered or threatened lists in Trump’s second term. 
By comparison, more than 20 species were added in Trump’s first term, and about 60 during Biden’s presidency. 
About 30 species are currently proposed to be listed as threatened. 
Besides monarchs and alligator snapping turtles, they include California spotted owls and various snakes, fish, clams and insects. 
Changes to government policies for endangered plants and wildlife have come faster and extended further in Trump’s second term than in his first. 
The administration in March exempted oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico from the Endangered Species Act after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said environmentalists’ lawsuits threatened to hobble domestic energy supplies as the U.S. wages war against Iran. 
Last week, Interior officials sharply narrowed the definition of what constitutes “harm” to a species. 
The change would allow development on critical wildlife habitat so long as the animals themselves are not immediately killed or injured. 
This week officials sharply reduced the amount of critical habitat in the U.S. 
Rocky Mountains designated for Canada lynx, forest dwelling wildcats that are threatened by climate change and other pressures. 
Also this week, Burgum said in a visit to Montana that the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service would turn over more management authority for grizzly bears to states where the bruins live. 
That’s been a longstanding priority for the Republican governors of Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. 
The Endangered Species Act is credited with bringing back iconic animals including the bald eagle and American alligator from the brink of extinction. 
Burgum noted Friday that 97% of the species that have been given protections still have them. 
That’s a frustration for Republican lawmakers who say species should be taken off the endangered and threatened lists more quickly once they’ve recovered. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.9%Matthew Brown: 4.2%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias7.9%This article: 3.2%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias3.2%This article: 7.6%Matthew Brown: 2.0%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.2%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.2%Matthew Brown: 0.2%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.7%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Matthew Brown: 7.2%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.8%Matthew Brown: 0.8%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Matthew Brown: 0.4%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 4.1%Matthew Brown: 0.6%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 13.3%Matthew Brown: 6.2%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 4.3%Matthew Brown: 0.5%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias4.3%This article: 7.9%Matthew Brown: 0.6%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Matthew Brown: 1.7%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Matthew Brown: 0.9%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect7.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Matthew Brown: 0.7%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.6%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.6%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.9%Matthew Brown: 3.3%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority2.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.5%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Matthew Brown: 0.7%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.9%Matthew Brown: 6.3%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion4.9%This article: 7.9%Matthew Brown: 0.2%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 7.2%Matthew Brown: 0.5%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.9%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.2%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division3.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.2%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 1.0%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.1%Matthew Brown: 1.2%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote12.1%This article: 4.9%Matthew Brown: 1.6%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 12.2%Matthew Brown: 2.1%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice12.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.3%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 1.6%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Matthew Brown: 0.6%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Matthew Brown: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

556 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers15%attributed speech473writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRocky Mountain Elk Foundation • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDefense Secretary Pete Hegseth • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBurgum • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words48% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+94.3 ptsWriter: 5.7%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.4 ptsWriter: 14.4%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth: 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.