Semafor⁠84%

ASML raises forecasts as AI boom boosts sales ⁠90%

By Tom Chivers⁠87%

7/15/2026, 12:12:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 31.8% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 347 faulty-reasoning hits from 129 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠90% (2,308 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 89.50% of the article peer group.

ASML raised its sales outlook, forecasting that AI-driven demand for computing power will continue to surge. 
The Dutch technology giant makes “extreme ultraviolet” lithography machines used to produce the world’s most advanced semiconductors, perhaps the most complicated objects made by man. 
The company reported 21% year-on-year sales growth in Q2, and expects more: Strong results from two major customers, Intel and TSMC, indicated further demand, the Financial Times reported. 
ASML’s output is a major bottleneck in the AI industry — no other company produces eUV machines and it can only make a few dozen a year. 
In a major bet that AI-led demand will continue, it announced plans to boost capacity by 30% next year and a similar amount in 2028. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.7%Tom Chivers: 8.3%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 5.0%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Tom Chivers: 10.6%Semafor: 5.5%Availability Heuristic20.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.1%Semafor: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Tom Chivers: 18.4%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.9%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.2%Semafor: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.5%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 31.8%Tom Chivers: 9.1%Semafor: 4.9%Optimism Bias31.8%This article: 20.9%Tom Chivers: 8.1%Semafor: 4.0%Pessimism Bias20.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 24.0%Semafor: 12.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Tom Chivers: 2.3%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect19.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.5%Semafor: 3.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 12.3%Semafor: 7.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.4%Semafor: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.2%Semafor: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.5%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.9%Tom Chivers: 18.8%Semafor: 8.3%Hasty Generalization20.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.2%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 19.4%Tom Chivers: 2.1%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon19.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 6.2%Semafor: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 19.4%Tom Chivers: 2.3%Semafor: 1.2%Begging the Question19.4%This article: 21.7%Tom Chivers: 10.7%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.6%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.8%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.4%Tom Chivers: 2.9%Semafor: 2.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.4%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.4%Semafor: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.7%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.7%Tom Chivers: 4.6%Semafor: 5.1%Unattributed Quote21.7%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 5.0%Semafor: 3.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.6%Tom Chivers: 15.8%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice25.6%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.5%Semafor: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.3%Semafor: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

129 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech85writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageASML • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageFinancial Times • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Financial Times

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words64% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Financial Times: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-38.8 ptsWriter: 38.8%Financial Times: 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.