BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 34.2% saturation with 50 hits. Analysis detected 186 faulty-reasoning hits from 146 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.3% and a BS Rank of 44% (11,914 of 21,193 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.20% of the article peer group.

An overhaul of federal student loan rules takes effect on Wednesday, affecting millions of borrowers. 
The new changes, which originated from Republicans’ tax law, scale back repayment options; cap borrowing amounts for graduate and professional students at $100,000 and $200,000, respectively; and require schools to show their graduates make more than certain earnings thresholds in order to preserve their access to the federal loan program. 
The rules face legal challenges: A federal judge last week temporarily blocked part of the rule that would have subjected nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and those in other similar fields to the lower loan cap. 
The rule as written “would have a big impact on healthcare workforce” because the lower cap would deter people from going into these fields, said Chantell Taylor of the American Academy of Physician Associates, which is among the organizations suing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.4%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 6.1%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 1.4%Semafor: 5.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.3%Semafor: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.2%Morgan Chalfant: 28.7%Semafor: 16.1%Framing Effect34.2%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.0%Semafor: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 5.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 7.1%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Morgan Chalfant: 15.5%Semafor: 12.7%Negativity Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 4.6%Semafor: 3.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 1.5%Semafor: 0.8%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 4.9%Semafor: 7.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.4%Semafor: 2.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 2.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.4%Morgan Chalfant: 6.3%Semafor: 8.1%Hasty Generalization27.4%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.4%Morgan Chalfant: 10.1%Semafor: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion27.4%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 9.0%Semafor: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 4.6%Semafor: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.4%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 1.5%Semafor: 5.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 3.4%Semafor: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 9.5%Semafor: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.0%Semafor: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 34.2%Morgan Chalfant: 12.7%Semafor: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias34.2%This article: 0.0%Morgan Chalfant: 2.4%Semafor: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

146 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker27%attributed speech106writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageChantell Taylor • 40 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chantell Taylor

100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words100% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Politically Right Leaning -47.2 ptsWriter: 47.2%Chantell Taylor: 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.