CNBC⁠54%

Closing Bell: Day Trading, Money Manager and Investor News ⁠67%

By Scott Wapner⁠0%

1/26/2016, 11:26:31 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Recency Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 92.6% saturation with 113 hits. Analysis detected 262 faulty-reasoning hits from 122 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,411 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.10% of the article peer group.

"Closing Bell,” anchored by Scott Wapner, guides you through the most important hour of the trading day and takes a close-up look at how the markets are moving, what's driving them and how investors are reacting. 
Live coverage includes reports from the Chicago Board of Trade, New York Mercantile Exchange, NASDAQ and the NYSE. 
Analysts, money managers and CEOs explain their strategies, share opinions, and provide an inside perspective on breaking news stories. 
In addition, "Closing Bell" provides instant analysis of corporate profit reports, as soon as they break, during the quarterly earning seasons. 
Features include interviews with entrepreneurs, plus an inside-look at how executives and high-net-worth individuals spend their time and money. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 4.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Scott Wapner: 8.0%CNBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic14.8%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 29.5%Scott Wapner: 16.6%CNBC: 6.5%Framing Effect29.5%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 7.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Scott Wapner: 11.7%CNBC: 2.9%Halo Effect15.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%Scott Wapner: 8.6%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.6%Scott Wapner: 7.8%CNBC: 5.0%Appeal to Authority15.6%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 29.5%Scott Wapner: 32.4%CNBC: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice29.5%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 92.6%Scott Wapner: 48.2%CNBC: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…92.6%

122 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.