Brookings⁠35%

Is the Declaration of Independence still relevant 250 years later? ⁠48%

By Kathryn Dunn Tenpas⁠0%

3/18/2026, 2:16:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 91.7% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 481 faulty-reasoning hits from 121 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (10,692 of 20,515 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.10% of the article peer group.

In this new season of Democracy In Question, host Katie Dunn Tenpas unpacks the 250-year-old Declaration of Independence phrase by phrase with guests, finding the throughline between America’s founding ideals and our democracy today. 
Stay tuned for new episodes soon. 
Democracy in Question is part of the Brookings Podcast Network. 
Subscribe and listen wherever you listen to podcasts. 
Send feedback to podcasts@brookings.edu. 
Listen to Democracy in Question on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you like to get podcasts. 
Watch episodes on YouTube. 
Learn about other Brookings podcasts from the Brookings Podcast Network. 
Sign up for the podcasts newsletter for occasional updates on featured episodes and new shows. 
Send feedback email to podcasts@brookings.edu. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.6%Brookings: 4.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.4%Brookings: 0.8%Anchoring Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 2.0%Brookings: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.7%Brookings: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.8%Brookings: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.6%Brookings: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 55.4%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 2.1%Brookings: 5.2%Framing Effect55.4%This article: 12.4%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.1%Brookings: 0.4%Loss Aversion12.4%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.7%Brookings: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.4%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.7%Brookings: 3.0%Optimism Bias17.4%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.9%Brookings: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 3.0%Brookings: 5.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.4%Brookings: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.4%Brookings: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.2%Brookings: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.1%Brookings: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.4%Brookings: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 28.1%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 2.6%Brookings: 1.3%Halo Effect28.1%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.6%Brookings: 1.2%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.2%Brookings: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 44.6%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.5%Brookings: 3.9%Appeal to Authority44.6%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.2%Brookings: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.3%Brookings: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 28.1%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.3%Brookings: 0.2%Circular Reasoning28.1%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 9.5%Brookings: 5.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 17.4%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.3%Brookings: 0.3%Bandwagon17.4%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.9%Brookings: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.3%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.8%Brookings: 0.8%Begging the Question8.3%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 2.7%Brookings: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.1%Brookings: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.1%Brookings: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.8%Brookings: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.1%Brookings: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.1%Brookings: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 2.7%Brookings: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 28.1%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.2%Brookings: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection28.1%This article: 44.6%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.4%Brookings: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice44.6%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.1%Brookings: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 3.0%Brookings: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 0.0%Brookings: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 91.7%Kathryn Dunn Tenpas: 1.0%Brookings: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…91.7%

121 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker17%attributed speech101writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageBrookings Podcast Network • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageBrookings Podcast Network • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +9.9 ptsWriter: 90.1%Brookings Podcast Network: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+6.4 ptsWriter: 43.6%Brookings Podcast Network: 50.0%50.0%Quote-first Misdirection-33.7 ptsWriter: 33.7%Brookings Podcast Network: 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.