How well did you follow St. Louis-area news this year? Take our 2025 news quiz98%

12/19/2025, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 45.7% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 397 faulty-reasoning hits from 173 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.9% and a BS Rank of 98% (618 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.10% of the article peer group.

A devastating tornado, the birth of the St. Louis Zoo's newest Asian elephant, and the federal indictment of St. Louis Sheriff Alfred Montgomery were some of the biggest stories of 2025. 
It's been quite a year. 
Donald Trump retook the presidency. 
People grew more excited  and more anxious  about AI. 
Everyone was humming along to Sabrina Carpenter's "Manchild." 
KPop Demon Hunters went wild. 
But that's the national news. 
Lots of things happened in the St. Louis area, and you remember them all. 
Right? 
Put that memory to the test with STLPR's 2025 year-in-news quiz. 
Can you score 90% or better? 
If you do, email a screenshot of your results to social@stlpr.org by December 31 for a chance to win a STLPR hoodie or mug. 
(Full disclosure: We will sign you up for our daily Gateway Newsletter.) 
How well did you do? 
If you want to improve your score for the 2026 edition, sign up for the Gateway Newsletter  essential St. Louis-area news sent straight to your inbox every weekday morning. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias20.8%This article: 13.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 45.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect45.7%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 11.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 6.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion6.9%This article: 17.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias17.9%This article: 31.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias31.2%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 2.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 31.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion31.2%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.6%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 17.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.3%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

173 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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