OPB⁠4%

Portland Fire hold the Mystics to 29% shooting in a 75-56 rout ⁠2%

By AP staff⁠2%

7/17/2026, 7:27:37 AM

Keywords: Sports, Basketball

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.1% saturation with 12 hits. Analysis detected 24 faulty-reasoning hits from 149 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 11.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠2% (21,534 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.40% of the article peer group.

Carla Leite scored 14 points, Serah Williams had 12 points and the Portland Fire beat the Washington Mystics 75-56 on Thursday night. 
Sarah Ashlee Barker added 10 points to help Portland (11-14) avenge a quadruple-overtime loss to Washington on June 28. 
Frieda Buhner made all three of her 3-point attempts, and the Fire finished 10 of 35 from distance. 
Shakira Austin had 19 points and nine rebounds for Washington (12-11). 
The Mystics shot 29% from the field, going 2 of 21 from 3-point range, to go with 19 turnovers. 
Portland jumped out to a 28-13 lead after the first quarter and extended it to 43-20 by the midway point of the second. 
The Fire led by double figures the entire second half. 
Up next 
Fire: At Minnesota on Saturday night. 
Mystics: At Golden State on Saturday night. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%AP staff: 6.9%Associated Press: 4.7%Framing Effect8.1%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 4.3%Associated Press: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 6.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.1%AP staff: 2.7%Associated Press: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice8.1%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP staff: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

149 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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