A quasar breaks the record for most distant supermassive black hole 5%

By Lisa Grossman6%

7/14/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.8% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 447 faulty-reasoning hits from 387 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 18.9% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,985 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.90% of the article peer group.

There’s a new record holder for the most distant supermassive black hole. 
A newly spotted quas2ar  a black hole that is gobbling matter so quickly it glows white-hot  sends light from just 662 million years after the Big Bang, astronomers report July 6 in Astronomy & Astrophysics. 
The previous record holder, discovered in 2021, is from 15 million years later. 
The discovery ratchets up the tension on a longstanding mystery of how early black holes got so big so fast, says astronomer Daming Yang of Leiden University in the Netherlands. 
“Every step further back in time is making this question even harder to explain.” 
The new champ was spotted by the European Space Agency’s Euclid space telescope, which embarked on a six-year mission in 2024 to map about a third of the sky in infrared wavelengths of light. 
Those wavelengths are crucial for finding distant objects, because light gets stretched, or redshifted, as it traverses the expanding cosmos. 
If a quasar emits visible light in the early universe, it will appear infrared when it reaches our telescopes. 
Before Euclid, telescopes could detect only the brightest quasars out to about 770 million years after the Big Bang, which was 13.7 billion years ago. 
Until now, astronomers knew of only nine quasars earlier than that. 
In its first 18 months, Euclid found 12 more, Yang and colleagues report. 
“This turns the field from studying a few outliers to studying the earliest massive black holes as a population,” Yang says. 
“That’s equally as important as breaking the record.” 
The new record holder, called EUCL J1729, is not alone. 
The quasars ranked second and third in distance were also in this crop. 
They are much fainter than other quasars spotted at similar distances, probably because the bright ones are easier to see. 
Finding more faint ones to study will help reveal what most quasars in that era were really like. 
The next steps are to follow up with the James Webb Space Telescope and other observatories to learn more about the quasars’ masses and environments. 
Aside from that, “the search will just keep going,” Yang says. 
Euclid could spot the first quasars out to 645 million years after the Big Bang  possibly as soon as this year. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 2.1%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.4%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias9.0%This article: 12.4%Lisa Grossman: 2.2%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic12.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.2%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.5%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Lisa Grossman: 3.6%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%Lisa Grossman: 0.9%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.2%Lisa Grossman: 5.8%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias13.2%This article: 3.6%Lisa Grossman: 1.0%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.6%This article: 7.8%Lisa Grossman: 1.9%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Lisa Grossman: 1.2%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Lisa Grossman: 0.9%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.6%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.2%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.8%Lisa Grossman: 3.5%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority16.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 1.4%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.6%Lisa Grossman: 2.8%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization10.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 2.2%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.2%Lisa Grossman: 1.4%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.2%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.4%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Lisa Grossman: 1.0%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.1%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.5%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Lisa Grossman: 1.0%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.5%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.6%Lisa Grossman: 1.6%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice9.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.3%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Grossman: 0.4%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

387 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech256writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDaming Yang • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDaming Yang • 14 words • 100.0% coverageEuropean Space Agency • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDaming Yang • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDaming Yang • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDaming Yang • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDaming Yang • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daming Yang

100%flagged-word coverage
97 attributed words74% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.5 ptsWriter: 14.5%Daming Yang: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+14.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Daming Yang: 14.4%14.4%

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.