BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 30.9% saturation with 276 hits. Analysis detected 1,707 faulty-reasoning hits from 892 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.4% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,707 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.20% of the article peer group.

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP)  Iran’s stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz may be easing  and its own oil problems now seem to be mounting. 
The crucial strait at the mouth of the Persian Gulf, through which a fifth of the world’s oil and natural gas supplies once passed, has been effectively shut by Iran’s attacks on shipping since the start of the war in February. 
Even with much of its navy sunk, just Iran’s threat to attack made shippers and insurers hesitant to send vessels through the strait. 
The resulting energy crunch has fueled global inflation, including in the U.S. 
The situation, however, appears to be shifting. 
Analysts say more oil from Gulf Arab states appears to be getting out to market, with the help of the U.S. military. 
U.S. 
President Donald Trump says a “secret mission” to provide overwatch for ships got more than 100 million barrels of crude oil out. 
Meanwhile, American forces imposing a blockade have repeatedly shot at or stopped ships associated with Iran’s sanctioned oil trade, affecting the country’s ability to get the hard currency it needs. 
But if the flow can be sustained or ramped up, it could change the calculus of the crisis. 
Iran’s ability to hurt the world economy with its grip on the strait has been its greatest advantage, giving it confidence it can outlast the U.S. even as the war and American blockade wreaked heavy damage on its economy. 
Still, the course of the conflict remains highly uncertain. 
This week saw days of intense fire between Iran, Israel and the United States. 
Trump on Thursday threatened to seize the oil export terminal of Kharg Island and bomb the Islamic Republic even more intensely, then suddenly pulled back and once again claimed a breakthrough in negotiations to end the war. 
A ‘secret mission’ goes public 
Getting the strait open and oil flowing has been a key priority for Trump  though he has seemed at times to flail for ways to make it happen. 
After initially telling allied nations that the strait wasn’t America’s concern and to "go get your own oil,” Trump turned to threatening to do everything up to the destruction of "a whole civilization" to get tankers out through the waterway again. 
It appears that in recent weeks, rising confidence in U.S. military support and the growing need for supplies convinced shippers to hazard the risk of running the strait, using stealthy methods. 
Most likely, the ships have gone through by going “dark,” meaning they’ve turned off their tracking systems. 
TankerTrackers.com, a website tracking the oil trade at sea, said it had also seen ship-to-ship transfers by Gulf Arab states this past weekend, trying to obscure the source of their crude and run through the strait without being detected by Iran. 
That’s likely with the support of the American military. 
Kpler, a firm monitoring commodities markets, has tracked some 96 million barrels of non-Iranian crude oil exports getting out of the region since early May, either through the strait or via export options in the Gulf of Oman, said Amena Bakr, an analyst at Kpler. 
Including cargoes still loading, she said, it would likely exceed 100 million barrels, “broadly consistent with Trump’s claim.” 
Trump gave the 100 million barrel figure in online posts Wednesday, in which he said more than 200 vessels had traveled through the strait thanks to “a secret mission” to support tankers and other ships. 
“This wildly successful effort is because the UNITED STATES of AMERICA CONTROLS the Strait of Hormuz  NOT Iran,” Trump wrote. 
US blockade squeezes Iran’s oil industry 
As the U.S. pushes Gulf Arab states’ tankers out, it continues to block Iranian ones from entering or leaving the strait. 
That has included shooting into vessels to stop them, like the attack Wednesday that killed three Indian sailors. 
Unable to get its oil to market, Iran is topping out onshore storage and using dozens of tankers off Kharg Island to store crude. 
Iran also apparently has been forced to slow or stop its production of oil at some wells, which experts warn can be dangerous, since older wells like those Iran has may not be able to be started again after stopping. 
The energy firm Wood Mackenzie believes Iran’s output has fallen by 800,000 barrels a day since the American blockade began. 
Meanwhile, the amount stored onshore is estimated to be 69 million barrels, the highest level since Trump’s “maximum pressure” campaign in 2020. 
“The mounting economic cost of falling output, restricted exports and tightening storage capacity is increasing pressure on Tehran to seek a diplomatic solution,” Alexandre Araman of Wood Mackenzie said. 
“For Iran, even a temporary diplomatic breakthrough could provide immediate relief.” 
Oil prices have remained under $100 a barrel, in part over Trump’s promises of a deal and other countries using reserves and tightening their use of oil. 
China, long a major buyer of Iranian sanctioned oil, saw its seaborne crude oil imports drop to 6.8 million barrels a day in May, its lowest level since October 2016, according to Kpler. 
That’s bought Trump and the global economy a bit more time, but a deal likely would need to be reached soon to avoid the energy crisis becoming dire in the coming months. 
___ 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.2%Jon Gambrell: 2.0%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias12.2%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.7%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Jon Gambrell: 2.7%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.5%This article: 3.5%Jon Gambrell: 0.7%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.4%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Jon Gambrell: 2.3%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias6.4%This article: 10.7%Jon Gambrell: 10.2%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect10.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.4%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.4%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Jon Gambrell: 2.1%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 11.1%Jon Gambrell: 2.7%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias11.1%This article: 20.6%Jon Gambrell: 11.1%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias20.6%This article: 6.7%Jon Gambrell: 1.6%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 9.6%Jon Gambrell: 0.9%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error9.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.2%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 1.1%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.8%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.5%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Jon Gambrell: 1.6%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.2%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.5%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 4.6%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man4.6%This article: 30.9%Jon Gambrell: 3.6%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority30.9%This article: 5.9%Jon Gambrell: 1.4%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 1.2%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.6%Jon Gambrell: 2.3%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization7.6%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.3%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.0%Jon Gambrell: 5.0%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion7.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.7%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.7%Jon Gambrell: 3.5%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.7%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.3%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.6%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Jon Gambrell: 2.1%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Jon Gambrell: 3.0%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 0.1%Jon Gambrell: 1.7%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.1%This article: 19.8%Jon Gambrell: 2.7%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice19.8%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.5%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.0%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jon Gambrell: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

892 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers40%attributed speech539writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageTankerTrackers.com • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKpler • 45 words • 0.0% coverageAmena Bakr • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 35 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWood Mackenzie • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAlexandre Araman • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAlexandre Araman • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageKpler • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
156 attributed words44% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice+1.1 ptsWriter: 25.2%Donald Trump: 26.3%26.3%Unattributed Quote-11.5 ptsWriter: 11.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.2 ptsWriter: 0.2%Donald Trump: 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.