Dear Abby: Relatives weigh wedding gift for undeserving nephew 58%

By Abigail Van Buren72%

7/21/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Hasty Generalization, and Status Quo Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.7% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 1,030 faulty-reasoning hits from 610 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.8% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,226 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.80% of the article peer group.

DEAR ABBY: Our nephew "Conrad" is engaged to be married soon. 
For several reasons, we are unable to attend the wedding. 
Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't hesitate to send a generous gift as I have for our other nieces and nephews. 
However, Conrad is not normal. 
He doesn't speak to me, my husband or our children, two of whom are his age. 
We have never done anything to offend him, as far as I know, and it's not just our family. 
He also ignores other specific family members. 
Conrad's mother describes him as "the kindest" and "most loving" person. 
However, we have never seen that side of him. 
We have witnessed only narcissism and rudeness. 
He speaks only to those he thinks elevate his status or make him look good in some way. 
If, according to Conrad, we do not exist, are we still obligated to send a wedding gift?  INVISIBLE IN THE SOUTHERN PLAINS 
DEAR INVISIBLE: Are you certain you will receive a wedding invitation from this nephew? 
Technically, if you don't attend, you're not required to give him anything. 
However, in light of the fact that you have been generous to your other nieces and nephews, it might be more diplomatic to send a less expensive token gift to mollify his parents. 
DEAR ABBY: I have been married for 10 years. 
For the first three years, I tried to get closer to my in-laws but was told I wasn't welcome. 
I knew they didn't like me, but I tried my hardest to win them over because family is important to me. 
In the end, I was asked to leave their house. 
My husband was on my side, but I realized I couldn't separate him from his family. 
So, for seven years he's had the support of his family and mine. 
One of his siblings is now sick, and it's looking grim. 
I do not feel my presence is required at the funeral as no one in his family likes me. 
Am I wrong? 
Anytime I run into his family, they are confrontational.  STAYING AWAY IN ILLINOIS 
DEAR STAYING AWAY: Ask your husband if he would like your emotional support at his sibling's funeral. 
Bear in mind that funerals do not bring out the best in some people, and your in-laws will be no exception. 
Then do as your husband requests but have a quick getaway plan in place in case you need to leave. 
DEAR ABBY: Two of our children are planning a European vacation with their families. 
My wife is upset because they didn't invite her and stated bluntly that she's not welcome to join them. 
How can we convince her not to take their decision personally?  MAYBE NEXT TIME IN MASSACHUSETTS 
DEAR MAYBE: Surely your wife is mature enough to understand that when a young family takes a trip, she should not expect to be automatically included? 
They are entitled to some time to make memories together. 
If she insists on taking it personally, there is nothing you can do to convince her, so let her sulk it out. 
Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. 
Contact Dear Abby at www.DearAbby.com or P.O. 
Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069. 
For everything you need to know about wedding planning, order "How to Have a Lovely Wedding." 
Send your name and mailing address, plus check or money order for $8 (U.S. funds), to: Dear Abby, Wedding Booklet, P.O. 
Box 446, Kings Mills, OH 45034-0446. 
(Shipping and handling are included in the price.) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.7%Abigail Van Buren: 3.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias9.7%This article: 2.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias2.0%This article: 3.8%Abigail Van Buren: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.8%Abigail Van Buren: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Abigail Van Buren: 2.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.3%Abigail Van Buren: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias11.3%This article: 10.8%Abigail Van Buren: 2.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect10.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Abigail Van Buren: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 20.7%Abigail Van Buren: 13.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias20.7%This article: 3.4%Abigail Van Buren: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias3.4%This article: 3.0%Abigail Van Buren: 5.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error3.0%This article: 2.6%Abigail Van Buren: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 4.3%Abigail Van Buren: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias4.3%This article: 3.4%Abigail Van Buren: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.4%This article: 1.8%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Abigail Van Buren: 2.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem1.5%This article: 3.6%Abigail Van Buren: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man3.6%This article: 7.7%Abigail Van Buren: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 17.9%Abigail Van Buren: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma17.9%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.4%Abigail Van Buren: 5.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization14.4%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.1%Abigail Van Buren: 2.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion3.1%This article: 3.1%Abigail Van Buren: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question3.1%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.4%Abigail Van Buren: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof5.4%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.8%Abigail Van Buren: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.8%Abigail Van Buren: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.8%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.6%Abigail Van Buren: 1.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote5.6%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.0%Abigail Van Buren: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice2.0%This article: 3.6%Abigail Van Buren: 3.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Abigail Van Buren: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Abigail Van Buren: 9.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.5%

610 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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