BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 601 faulty-reasoning hits from 691 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38% and a BS Rank of 26% (15,240 of 20,378 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.80% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP)  On one side: a small community in rural Texas. 
On the other: the Trump administration. 
A tiny Texan town along the border with Mexico is fighting the administration’s efforts to build a border wall running through a levee system protecting the community. 
The town argued in court Tuesday that the wall could cause flooding and that the administration isn’t following the law as it rushes forward with its plans. 
The hearing in federal court came as the Department of Homeland Security charges forward with its $46 billion plan to complete a border wall from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico and deliver on what has long been a signature promise of President Donald Trump. 
But the department is running into opposition by landowners, environmental groups, Native American tribes and others who argue that the government’s rapid construction endangers historical and religious sites and a way of life along the border, when crossings from Mexico are already at extreme lows. 
The lawsuit brought by the development district of Presidio pits a small town of a little over 3,200 residents against a department key to the Trump administration’s plans to carry out its mass deportations agenda. 
It also showcases a context that has long been important to many Americans, particularly Republicans: the scratchiness that sometimes arises between the most local of municipalities and the federal government in Washington. 
Lawyers for the development district contend the government’s plans could compromise the levee system protecting the town from flash flooding  a formidable problem in Texas  and that the government flouted a key act that requires it to seek permission from the Army Corps of Engineers before building on or near the levees. 
The government argues that there is no final plan for where the border wall will go or how it will be built. 
Regardless, the administration asserts it has the authority to waive a vast swath of regulations to build the wall as it seeks to get the number of people crossing the border every day to zero. 
The department has waived numerous regulations to build the wall faster 
In the race to build the wall, both former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and the current secretary, Markwayne Mullin, have waived numerous requirements protecting the environment or archaeological sites that the federal government normally has to follow when building infrastructure projects. 
Under legislation passed by Congress, Homeland Security does have the authority to waive certain requirements specifically to speed up the building of walls along the U.S.-Mexico border. 
But critics argue the department is going much further than Congress intended by issuing broad waivers all along the 2,000-mile or 3,200-kilometer length of the frontier. 
In Presidio’s case, the development district is arguing that Homeland Security is running afoul of the Rivers and Harbors Act. 
The department has waived it, but lawyers for Presidio argued that because of the wording of the Act, Homeland Security was still required to consult with the Army Corps of Engineers before launching the project. 
Louis Katz, a lawyer for Democracy Forward, warned that the way the department was waiving state and federal laws as it moves forward with the wall is an “extraordinary exertion of authority.” 
The department has waived numerous regulations to build the wall faster 
The Trump administration is pushing forward with the wall when border crossings are at the lowest levels in decades. 
The Big Bend Sector has not experienced the high number of border crossings seen in recent years in other areas farther south along the Rio Grande or in Arizona or California, owing to the remote and challenging terrain on both sides of the border. 
But the Justice Department lawyer said low border crossing numbers seen over the last year are an “anomaly” and the goal is “zero illegal crossings.” 
Walton also said he was struggling with the issue of how much authority he had to limit the department considering that Congress had given it the ability to waive certain requirements. 
The judge said he would issue a ruling in the coming week. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Rebecca Santana: 2.2%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Rebecca Santana: 3.5%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic2.7%This article: 6.4%Rebecca Santana: 0.5%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.8%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.2%Rebecca Santana: 9.7%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect12.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.4%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.1%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.7%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.6%AP News: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Rebecca Santana: 12.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias24.9%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 2.5%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.3%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Rebecca Santana: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%In-Group Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.3%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.9%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.5%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 2.8%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Rebecca Santana: 0.8%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect6.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.6%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.8%Rebecca Santana: 6.0%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority7.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.7%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Rebecca Santana: 2.3%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.4%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.8%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 4.4%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.0%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 2.1%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.3%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Rebecca Santana: 3.0%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.2%Rebecca Santana: 2.1%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.4%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.4%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.8%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.0%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.0%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 1.3%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Santana: 0.6%AP News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

691 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.6%attributed speech659writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageLouis Katz • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Louis Katz

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words100% of attributed speech76% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.