Heat causes Great American State Fair to close temporarily and other disruptions ⁠31%

By Liam Scott⁠0% Joe Heim⁠0%

7/3/2026, 2:17:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 62.1% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 165 faulty-reasoning hits from 66 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (14,269 of 20,408 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.90% of the article peer group.

A blistering heat wave gripping Washington prompted the Great American State Fair to close for hours Friday afternoon, while forcing delays and cancellations at other celebrations in the region. 
Early Friday afternoon, Freedom 250 announced that the Great American State Fair on the National Mall would temporarily close until 5 p.m. due to heat. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 2.4%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 43.9%Liam Scott: 8.7%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic43.9%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 2.1%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Liam Scott: 11.2%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect18.2%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 4.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 43.9%Liam Scott: 20.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias43.9%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 3.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 3.1%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 2.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 62.1%Liam Scott: 6.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)62.1%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 37.9%Liam Scott: 5.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote37.9%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 1.3%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 43.9%Liam Scott: 11.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice43.9%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Liam Scott: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

66 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker38%attributed speech41writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageFreedom 250 • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Freedom 250

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Freedom 250: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-70.7 ptsWriter: 70.7%Freedom 250: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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