Inflation hits 4.2 percent for first time in three years ⁠65%

By Andrew Ackerman⁠0%

6/10/2026, 12:33:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 62.7% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 232 faulty-reasoning hits from 67 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,609 of 21,171 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.10% of the article peer group.

Inflation crossed 4 percent for the first time in three years in May, as sustained pressure from the Iran war makes clear that the inflationary hit to consumers is far from over. 
The Labor Department’s consumer price index rose at a 4.2 percent<b> </b>annual pace in the year ending in May, up from 3.8 percent in April. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 47.8%Andrew Ackerman: 6.6%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias47.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 8.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 4.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Andrew Ackerman: 9.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect14.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 47.8%Andrew Ackerman: 6.7%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias47.8%This article: 62.7%Andrew Ackerman: 12.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias62.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 1.5%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 14.9%Andrew Ackerman: 0.5%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias14.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 3.8%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 1.8%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 3.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 4.5%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 47.8%Andrew Ackerman: 5.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion47.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 47.8%Andrew Ackerman: 15.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)47.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 2.5%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 1.5%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 3.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 62.7%Andrew Ackerman: 6.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice62.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 1.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Ackerman: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

67 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker37%attributed speech42writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageU.S. Department of Labor • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%U.S. Department of Labor: 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.