Major oil firms skip Trump’s auction of Arctic wildlife refuge drilling leases ⁠83%

By Jake Spring⁠0%

6/5/2026, 4:12:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 236 faulty-reasoning hits from 52 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,610 of 21,198 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.00% of the article peer group.

Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Energy Secretary Chris Wright, along with Environmental Protection Agency chief Lee Zeldin, flew to Utqiagvik in the North Slope tundra on the Arctic Ocean last June on a mission to “unleash Alaska’s extraordinary resource potential.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 5.1%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 3.2%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 3.1%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Jake Spring: 52.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 4.3%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 76.9%Jake Spring: 5.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias76.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 6.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.1%Jake Spring: 42.7%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 3.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 76.9%Jake Spring: 25.4%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority76.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 6.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 7.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 1.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 76.9%Jake Spring: 11.8%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote76.9%This article: 76.9%Jake Spring: 10.8%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection76.9%This article: 23.1%Jake Spring: 19.1%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice23.1%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 4.3%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 11.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 5.4%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

52 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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