Prices for these grocery items have spiked highest since the war began ⁠100%

By Rachel Lerman⁠0% Federica Cocco⁠0%

5/12/2026, 7:11:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Recency Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 84 hits. Analysis detected 351 faulty-reasoning hits from 84 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (18 of 21,175 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.90% of the article peer group.

Grocery prices climbed at their fastest rate in nearly four years, putting increased pressure on Americans’ wallets at a time when many are already feeling pessimistic about the economy. 
Prices for groceries spiked in April, according to data released Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, while broader inflation reached its highest level in nearly three years, as the effects of the war in Iran start to weigh on the U.S. economy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 2.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 8.6%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 20.7%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 1.3%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Rachel Lerman: 48.9%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 5.2%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.5%Rachel Lerman: 25.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias34.5%This article: 48.8%Rachel Lerman: 47.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias48.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 51.2%Rachel Lerman: 32.7%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias51.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 7.7%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 34.5%Rachel Lerman: 15.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization34.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 34.5%Rachel Lerman: 15.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion34.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 65.5%Rachel Lerman: 44.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)65.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 6.3%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 6.5%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 4.3%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 48.8%Rachel Lerman: 45.1%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice48.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

84 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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