‘Hobbits’ likely scavenged dragons’ kills 38%

By Jake Buehler0%

7/6/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Framing Effect, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 14.1% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 535 faulty-reasoning hits from 448 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,651 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.40% of the article peer group.

Long ago on the Indonesian island of Flores, Komodo dragons ate first, ripping into the flesh of cow-sized elephant kin and stripping their bones. 
Our tiny human relatives probably picked at the leftovers, researchers report July 3 in Science Advances. 
The new study challenges scientists’ understanding of the behavior of H. floresiensis  extinct, one-meter-tall hominids nicknamed “hobbits.” 
It suggests the island’s small-statured residents didn’t hunt big game after all but instead scavenged some of their food. 
If so, that raises questions about H. floresiensis’ evolution and level of sophistication. 
When H. floresiensis was first described more than 20 years ago from Liang Bua cave, purported cut marks on elephant bones and charred remains from other animals led some researchers to propose that the hominids had complex behaviors surprising for their small brain size: killing large prey and controlling fire. 
But researchers hadn’t yet done a systematic analysis of the bones to help confirm this idea. 
Elizabeth Grace Veatch, a paleoanthropologist at the National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., and her colleagues analyzed the marks on more than 3,000 fragments of ancient Stegodon bones from Liang Bua dating from 190,000 to 50,000 years ago. 
The researchers also fed goats to live Komodo dragons and analyzed the shape of tooth marks left behind on the bones using 3-D imaging. 
The marks on the Stegodon and goat bones were similar and didn’t look like cuts made by humans’ stone tools. 
There were also no impact marks on the ancient bones from spear tips. 
Komodo dragons were the ones butchering the elephants, not the island’s diminutive hominids, the team concludes. 
Instead, any elephant meat H. floresiensis ate was probably scavenged from the leftovers. 
“Komodo dragons typically consume nearly all edible soft tissues of their prey, sometimes leaving as little as around 12 percent of the carcass,” says Mika Rizki Puspaningrum, a vertebrate paleontologist at the Bandung Institute of Technology in Indonesia who was not involved with the study. 
Most of this is skin, bones and some internal organs. 
“This raises an interesting question about how much edible meat would actually have remained available for Homo floresiensis to exploit,” she says. 
If there was any left, the meat was probably eaten raw. 
Veatch and her colleagues analyzed nearly 7,000 rodent skeletal fragments for signs of burning, because their remains  littering the ground in the cave  would have been exposed to the hominids’ fires. 
But none were charred. 
If the hobbits weren’t killing big prey and making fires, then they may have evolved from a species that also hadn’t developed those skills, adding another question mark to the ever-changing picture of early human evolution. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.6%Jake Buehler: 0.9%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias3.6%This article: 14.1%Jake Buehler: 6.3%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.5%Jake Buehler: 3.9%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic4.5%This article: 8.0%Jake Buehler: 2.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias8.0%This article: 3.6%Jake Buehler: 0.9%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias3.6%This article: 10.3%Jake Buehler: 8.4%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.5%Jake Buehler: 0.6%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias2.5%This article: 2.9%Jake Buehler: 0.7%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 4.6%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Jake Buehler: 0.9%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.1%Jake Buehler: 6.0%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority14.1%This article: 7.8%Jake Buehler: 2.8%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma7.8%This article: 8.0%Jake Buehler: 4.0%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope8.0%This article: 7.4%Jake Buehler: 1.8%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning7.4%This article: 4.5%Jake Buehler: 7.2%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 1.3%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.5%Jake Buehler: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 11.2%Jake Buehler: 4.8%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.2%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Jake Buehler: 0.7%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%Jake Buehler: 0.7%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.4%Jake Buehler: 4.7%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice5.4%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Buehler: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

448 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers24%attributed speech341writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Grace Veatch • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMika Rizki Puspaningrum • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMika Rizki Puspaningrum • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words63% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Mika Rizki Puspaningrum: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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