BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Optimism Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 38.8% saturation with 81 hits. Analysis detected 305 faulty-reasoning hits from 209 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.1% and a BS Rank of 9% (20,096 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.80% of the article peer group.

Nara Organics recalled its organic baby formula sold nationwide in Target stores and online Saturday after a multistate outbreak of infant botulism, federal authorities said. 
Three babies between 2 and 5 months became ill in April and May in California, Pennsylvania and Washington after consuming Nara Organics Whole Milk Organic Powdered infant formula, which is also sold on Nara.com, the U.S. 
Food and Drug Administration said. 
They were hospitalized and treated with the FDA-approved treatment for infant botulism, the agency said. 
Infant botulism is a rare but serious illness that occurs in babies under age 1, whose gut microbiomes are immature. 
It is caused when infants consume bacteria with spores that produce a toxin in the gut. 
Symptoms include constipation, poor feeding, drooping eyelids, weak muscle tone, difficulty swallowing and breathing problems, among others. 
Babies who develop those symptoms need immediate medical attention. 
The sole treatment is BabyBIG, an IV medication made from blood plasma of people immunized against botulism. 
Nara Organics Whole Milk Organic Infant Formula makes up less than 1% of all infant formula sold in the United States, and the outbreak does not create shortage concerns for parents and caregivers, the FDA said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 38.8%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority38.8%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.2%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization17.2%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 38.8%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote38.8%This article: 0.0%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.2%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice17.2%This article: 4.3%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

209 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker27%attributed speech153writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Drug Administration • 5 words • 100.0% coverageFood and Drug Administration • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageFood and Drug Administration • 36 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words100% of attributed speech57% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+83.7 ptsWriter: 16.3%Food and Drug Administration: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-23.5 ptsWriter: 23.5%Food and Drug Administration: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Food and Drug Administration: 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.