Tigers-Cubs game will be delayed because of weather in area 7%

By Jeff Agrest21%

7/20/2026, 11:34:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Primacy Effect, Recency Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 71 faulty-reasoning hits from 104 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.8% and a BS Rank of 7% (19,848 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.70% of the article peer group.

The Cubs’ game Monday night against the Tigers at Wrigley Field will be delayed because of weather in the area. 
First pitch was scheduled for 7:05 p.m. 
Jameson Taillon is set to make his first start since June 7, when he left after one inning because of a strained left hamstring. 
He’ll face the Tigers’ Jack Flaherty. 
Both teams are coming off series in which they took two of three games. 
The Cubs won the last two against the Twins at home, while the Tigers won the first two against the Angels in Anaheim. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 2.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Jeff Agrest: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.6%Framing Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 13.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 8.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 8.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.5%Jeff Agrest: 3.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Recency Bias13.5%This article: 22.1%Jeff Agrest: 2.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Primacy Effect22.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 3.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.1%Jeff Agrest: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice23.1%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeff Agrest: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

104 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker23%attributed speech80writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJameson Taillon • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jameson Taillon

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jameson Taillon: 100.0%100.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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