Stocks drift lower and oil prices ease ahead of planned U.S.-Iran talks 12%

By Damian J. Troise0% Alex Veiga0%

4/10/2026, 8:22:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Authority, and Pessimism Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 19.8% saturation with 136 hits. Analysis detected 961 faulty-reasoning hits from 686 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.5% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,393 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.60% of the article peer group.

NEW YORK  Stocks drifted mostly lower on Wall Street and oil prices slipped ahead of planned U.S.-Iran talks following a shaky ceasefire agreement. 
The Standard & Poor's 500 fell 0.1% Friday. 
The Dow Jones Industrial Average lost 0.6%, and the Nasdaq composite rose 0.4%. 
Trading remained volatile ahead of high-level talks between negotiators from Iran and the U.S. planned for Saturday in Pakistan. 
The U.S. government reported a sharp spike in inflation in March because of the biggest monthly jump in gas prices in six decades, but the increase wasn't quite as bad as economists were expecting. 
Treasury yields rose in the bond market. 
Stocks wavered on Wall Street Friday and oil prices eased ahead of planned U.S.-Iran talks following a shaky ceasefire agreement. 
Major indexes have been gaining ground over the last two weeks amid optimism that the war with Iran could be heading toward a resolution. 
The S&P 500 has erased most of its losses from March and is just 2.3% short of its all-time high set in January. 
The market is still prone to big swings on developments around the war. 
Most companies in the benchmark S&P 500 were losing ground, with health care stocks driving much of the decline. 
Eli Lilly and Co. fell 1.8% and Johnson & Johnson slid 1.3% lower. 
Technology stocks with hefty values helped offset losses elsewhere. 
Nvidia rose 3% and Broadcom rose 5.3%. 
Markets in Asia gained ground while markets in Europe were mixed. 
Oil prices have been behind many of the stock market's sharp movements. 
Oil prices have surged as shipping through the vital Strait of Hormuz essentially stalled since the war began. 
Brent crude oil, the international standard, has gone from roughly $70 per barrel before the war in late February to more than $119 at times. 
Brent for June delivery fell 0.8% to $95.20 per barrel Friday. 
A barrel of U.S. crude oil for May delivery dropped 1.3% to $96.57. 
Negotiators from Iran and the U.S. are preparing for high-level talks on Saturday. 
The situation remains uncertain. 
Iran's semiofficial Tasnim news agency claimed that talks wouldn't happen unless Israel stopped its attacks in Lebanon. 
The conflict is behind surging inflation in the U.S. in March. 
The government reported the biggest spike in inflation in four years as prices at the gas pump jumped. 
But, the inflation increase was just short of what economists expected. 
Bond yields held mostly steady following the latest inflation update. 
The yield on the 10-year Treasury rose to 4.31% from 4.29% late Thursday. 
Inflation has been a lingering concern for economists. 
Prices on a range of consumer goods and services are already stubbornly high, in part from the impact of extensive global tariffs. 
Higher gas prices are immediately felt by drivers at the pump, but they could eventually raise prices on everything from food to airfare as companies pass along higher costs for shipping and fuel. 
Analysts are warning that there might be a drawn out impact from the oil supply shock in the months ahead. 
"While I'm glad to see the effects to be less than expected in March, the effects in April are now more likely to be worse," Jamie Cox, managing partner for Harris Financial Group, wrote in a research note. 
Consumer sentiment slumped 10.7% percent in April, according to a closely watched monthly survey from the University of Michigan. 
It also shows that consumers are growing more worried about inflation, with year-ahead expectations surging to 4.8% in April from 3.8% in March. 
Inflation remains a major concern for the Federal Reserve, which has signaled more caution amid worries about inflation reheating. 
The rate of inflation remains above the central bank's 2% target. 
The threat of rising inflation will likely mean the central bank continues to hold interest rates steady. 
Several Fed officials have also said a rate hike may be needed if inflation doesn't cool. 
Lower interest rates help boost stocks and other investments by lowering borrowing costs. 
Interest rate cuts also risk worsening inflation. 
Troise and Veiga write for the Associated Press. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.9%Damian J. Troise: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 4.5%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Damian J. Troise: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic7.3%This article: 4.8%Damian J. Troise: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 2.5%Damian J. Troise: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.5%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Damian J. Troise: 4.2%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect1.7%This article: 3.6%Damian J. Troise: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion3.6%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Damian J. Troise: 3.8%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 11.8%Damian J. Troise: 5.8%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias11.8%This article: 9.2%Damian J. Troise: 4.4%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Damian J. Troise: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.5%This article: 3.4%Damian J. Troise: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Damian J. Troise: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias5.2%This article: 1.6%Damian J. Troise: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.1%Damian J. Troise: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority13.1%This article: 2.5%Damian J. Troise: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 4.8%Damian J. Troise: 3.6%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope4.8%This article: 1.9%Damian J. Troise: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.9%This article: 3.6%Damian J. Troise: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.9%Damian J. Troise: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion2.9%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 19.8%Damian J. Troise: 8.1%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.8%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.7%Damian J. Troise: 3.7%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.7%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Damian J. Troise: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.5%Damian J. Troise: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice5.5%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Damian J. Troise: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

686 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers6.7%attributed speech640writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Cox • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jamie Cox

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words83% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jamie Cox: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-3.0 ptsWriter: 3.0%Jamie Cox: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

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

Analysis

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