Semafor⁠85%

El Niño expected to stress global supply chains ⁠98%

By Tom Chivers⁠87%

7/21/2026, 12:38:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.3% saturation with 72 hits. Analysis detected 453 faulty-reasoning hits from 128 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 97.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (418 of 20,515 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.00% of the article peer group.

This year’s El Niño weather system, expected to be one of the strongest in decades, could cause a global economic shock that the world is unable to absorb given existing stress on supply chains, Deutsche Bank warned. 
The phenomenon causes temperature spikes every few years and shifts weather patterns, exacerbating global warming trends: The US can expect wetter conditions, and India weaker monsoons. 
Disruption to agriculture, hydropower, shipping, and even political stability makes it “a multi-channel supply shock,” DB economists said. 
Alongside the Iran war, El Niño will “push inflation higher … when it is already above target.” 
It also raises the risk of natural disasters: China is offering typhoon survival training in coastal cities ahead of El Niño’s arrival. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.9%Tom Chivers: 9.4%Semafor: 4.7%Confirmation Bias28.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.8%Semafor: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 37.5%Tom Chivers: 7.7%Semafor: 5.3%Availability Heuristic37.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.0%Semafor: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.0%Semafor: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.5%Semafor: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Tom Chivers: 16.9%Semafor: 15.9%Framing Effect14.1%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%Semafor: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 10.4%Semafor: 5.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.5%Tom Chivers: 7.2%Semafor: 3.8%Pessimism Bias37.5%This article: 56.3%Tom Chivers: 20.0%Semafor: 12.2%Negativity Bias56.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.0%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: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.1%Semafor: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.6%Semafor: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 3.2%Semafor: 3.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 0.8%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: 43.0%Tom Chivers: 11.3%Semafor: 6.7%Appeal to Authority43.0%This article: 28.9%Tom Chivers: 3.9%Semafor: 2.6%False Dilemma28.9%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.7%Semafor: 2.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.6%Semafor: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 16.2%Semafor: 7.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.4%Semafor: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.3%Semafor: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 4.3%Semafor: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 2.6%Semafor: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 37.5%Tom Chivers: 11.3%Semafor: 4.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)37.5%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.3%Tom Chivers: 1.1%Semafor: 0.3%Burden of Proof13.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.8%Semafor: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.2%Tom Chivers: 2.1%Semafor: 2.0%Anecdotal17.2%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.3%Tom Chivers: 3.3%Semafor: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%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: 1.9%Semafor: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.0%Semafor: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.3%Tom Chivers: 4.1%Semafor: 5.2%Unattributed Quote13.3%This article: 13.3%Tom Chivers: 4.6%Semafor: 4.0%Quote-first Misdirection13.3%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 14.2%Semafor: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 0.6%Semafor: 1.6%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: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tom Chivers: 1.5%Semafor: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

128 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers43%attributed speech73writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDeutsche Bank • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDB economists • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Deutsche Bank

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words67% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-23.3 ptsWriter: 23.3%Deutsche Bank: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-23.3 ptsWriter: 23.3%Deutsche Bank: 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.