BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Indoctrination, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 21.6% saturation with 130 hits. Analysis detected 377 faulty-reasoning hits from 603 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.2% and a BS Rank of 30% (14,368 of 20,378 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.50% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP)  The House on Wednesday passed a defense policy bill that incorporates President Donald Trump’s request for a historic $1.15 trillion in spending for national security and that would designate the Department of Defense as the Department of War. 
It also would provide for a pay raise next year ranging from 5% to 7% for service members, depending upon their rank. 
The National Defense Authorization Act is generally one of the more bipartisan bills that Congress takes up on an annual basis. 
That’s not the case this year. 
The vote was 216-212. 
Democrats took issue with steep spending increases for the Pentagon as Republicans attempted to cut numerous non-defense programs through other bills. 
They also opposed some of the conservative social policy riders that were included. 
For example, the bill includes a prohibition on gender-related medical care under the military health program known as TRICARE. 
It also eases hurdles for service members to carry a privately owned firearm on base, following Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s lead on the issue. 
Rogers said the United States needs to reverse decades of underinvestment and neglect in the nation’s armed forces and defense industrial base. 
“This bill will do that and much more,” he said. 
“It will build the ready, capable and lethal fighting force we need to deter China and other adversaries.” 
Rep. 
Adam Smith, the ranking Democratic lawmaker on the Armed Services Committee, said the defense spending the administration has asked for this year is approaching $1.6 trillion when including separate efforts to pay for the war in Iran and boost weapons stockpiles. 
“The American people are struggling to pay their bills and we’re going to put $1.6 trillion into the defense budget. 
It’s not a reasonable thing to ask,” Smith said. 
Smith also expressed concern about the war with Iran and that in supporting the defense bill, lawmakers are “de facto supporting this war with no end in sight.” 
“We are in an incredibly, incredibly dangerous time,” Smith said. 
“I want to maintain the bipartisan nature of this bill. 
I do. 
And I know that the chairman does. 
But if we’re going to do this, we’re going to need some Republicans to stand up to the president of the United States and say, ‘No. 
No, we’re not going to get you $1.6 trillion. 
No, we’re not just going to give you a blank check for a war that is totally out of control.” 
The White House backs parts of the legislation 
The spending increases authorized in the bill would not take effect until Congress follows up with a separate defense appropriations bill. 
The Senate has not yet approved its version of the defense measure. 
It’s possible a final product won’t be ready until after the midterm elections. 
The White House applauded the spending levels authorized in the House bill and the Department of War designation that it says recognizes the “willingness to fight and win wars on behalf of our nation.” 
The president issued an executive order last year renaming the Defense Department, but it’s up to Congress to make the change official. 
The Congressional Budget Office has projected that the renaming could cost taxpayers as much as $125 million. 
The White House’s statement also said that the administration has a number of concerns with certain provisions in the bill and would work with Congress before a final bill is presented to the president. 
Among those concerns was a section of the bill it said would limit or undermine the president’s ability to name military installations and property. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.5%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.0%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Kevin Freking: 1.2%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias1.7%This article: 13.3%Kevin Freking: 9.9%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect13.3%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.6%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Kevin Freking: 2.0%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 2.2%AP News: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Kevin Freking: 6.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.0%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%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: 3.0%Kevin Freking: 4.8%AP News: 1.2%In-Group Bias3.0%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: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.4%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%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: 4.6%Kevin Freking: 4.4%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.1%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 21.6%Kevin Freking: 8.3%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion21.6%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.6%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%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: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.5%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 4.3%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 5.8%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Kevin Freking: 0.9%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%AP News: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

603 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers44%attributed speech337writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRogers • 22 words • 0.0% coverageRogers • 10 words • 0.0% coverageRogers • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 41 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 28 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Smith • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Smith • 9 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Smith • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageThe White House • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rogers

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words19% of attributed speech0% 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.