BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Self-Serving Bias, Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.8% saturation with 142 hits. Analysis detected 1,205 faulty-reasoning hits from 572 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,131 of 21,021 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.80% of the article peer group.

The House moved Tuesday to head-off a potential government shutdown before this fall’s critical midterm elections by passing a bill to fund the federal government through Dec. 
4. 
The deadline for action is more than two months away, but House GOP leaders are not leaving to chance another possible shutdown souring the mood of voters shortly before they go to the polls. 
House Speaker Mike Johnson dared Democrats to vote against the bill, and if they did, “then they alone are going to own the chaos that ensues if the government shuts down after September 30.” 
The House passed the measure by a mostly party-line vote of 220-205. 
It’s highly unusual for Congress to pass a stopgap funding bill months before the end of the fiscal year. 
Lawmakers normally act just days or even hours before the deadline. 
But once lawmakers leave town this week, the House is scheduled to be in session for only 16 more days before the funding deadline. 
GOP leadership is laying the groundwork to spend most of that time on another priority: a long-shot, party-line bill that spends $95 billion to boost defense, aid farmers and get portions of President Donald Trump’s elections overhaul bill passed into law. 
“I think it’s kind of smart to go ahead and take the potential chaos of a shutdown off the table because the amount of damage that does to the American citizens,” said Rep. 
Austin Scott, R-Ga. 
He said he believed a shutdown “probably works to the advantage of Democrats politically,” and he blamed the press for such a scenario. 
Democrats overwhelmingly opposed the stopgap measure, which would generally fund agencies at current spending levels. 
Rep. 
Rosa DeLauro, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the legislation was dropped on Democrats on Friday without any bipartisan negotiations. 
She said that, among other priorities, Democrats would have pushed for provisions to reverse a proposed federal rule that could allow agency heads to block or terminate grants they claim don’t match the president’s priorities. 
She said that instead of a bipartisan agreement, “we are scrambling to jam through a one-sided stopgap measure two days before everyone leaves for the August recess.” 
Republicans said work on the dozen annual spending bills would continue in the months ahead, but that funding the government through Dec. 4 could help lawmakers avoid a repeat of the past year when the country experienced the longest federal shutdown in history followed by the longest partial shutdown in history. 
“We’ve seen that happen twice in this Congress already,” said Rep. 
Tom Cole, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. 
“I’m not willing to risk a third time if we can avoid that.” 
Some of the more conservative Republican lawmakers were fine with the bill to extend funding to Dec. 4, known as a continuing resolution. 
In this environment, that’s “the best way to spend the least amount of money,” said Rep. 
Eric Burlison, R-Mo. 
“You keep spending levels static for at least a period of time.” 
It’s unclear if the Senate will go along with the bill. 
Spending bills require support from 60 senators to advance to a final vote, so some Democrats would need to support it. 
Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters that Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins was working with Democrats on the committee to “find a path forward.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.5%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Kevin Freking: 3.0%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic11.0%This article: 3.3%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 8.9%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.2%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%Kevin Freking: 9.9%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect24.8%This article: 8.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion8.0%This article: 9.4%Kevin Freking: 1.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Kevin Freking: 2.0%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias10.7%This article: 8.0%Kevin Freking: 2.2%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias8.0%This article: 15.7%Kevin Freking: 6.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 16.1%Kevin Freking: 3.0%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.2%Kevin Freking: 4.8%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.0%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.7%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 2.0%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.9%Kevin Freking: 3.4%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 4.4%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.2%Kevin Freking: 1.1%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon7.2%This article: 5.8%Kevin Freking: 8.3%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion5.8%This article: 6.8%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question6.8%This article: 13.6%Kevin Freking: 1.6%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.6%This article: 5.9%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque5.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.9%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal5.9%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.8%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.8%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading4.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.5%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote10.5%This article: 8.6%Kevin Freking: 1.5%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection8.6%This article: 2.3%Kevin Freking: 4.3%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice2.3%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

572 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers32%attributed speech391writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageMike Johnson • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageAustin Scott • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAustin Scott • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRosa DeLauro • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRosa DeLauro • 35 words • 0.0% coverageRosa DeLauro • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageTom Cole • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cole • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageEric Burlison • 3 words • 0.0% coverageEric Burlison • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words19% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-15.3 ptsWriter: 15.3%Mike Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.5 ptsWriter: 12.5%Mike Johnson: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.3 ptsWriter: 3.3%Mike Johnson: 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.