RSS Terms of Service ⁠48%

By Washington Post staff⁠16%

1/1/2021, 8:14:15 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Loss Aversion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 64.1% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 491 faulty-reasoning hits from 156 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠48% (11,443 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.30% of the article peer group.

We encourage new and innovative uses of our content, and we want our readers to have access to our content in a wide variety of different ways. 
We therefore make our content available through RSS feeds for personal use (e.g., in a news reader), for many commercial purposes, or for any other form of distribution to a third party. 
However, all use of our RSS feeds is subject to our User Agreement and to the terms and conditions below. 
If you have questions or concerns about any of these terms – or if you wish to use an RSS feed in a manner inconsistent with any provision below (e.g., on a mobile device for commercial purposes or redistribution, or with your own advertising) – please do not hesitate to contact us at rsssupport@washpost.com. 
We will be happy to discuss your ideas and to work with you to try to meet your requests. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.5%Washington Post staff: 1.2%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic20.5%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 55.1%Washington Post staff: 8.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect55.1%This article: 34.6%Washington Post staff: 2.1%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion34.6%This article: 12.8%Washington Post staff: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 29.5%Washington Post staff: 2.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias29.5%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Washington Post staff: 1.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.1%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.6%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Washington Post staff: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect17.3%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.6%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.1%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.1%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 3.1%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.1%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 64.1%Washington Post staff: 3.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice64.1%This article: 12.8%Washington Post staff: 8.7%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination12.8%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 55.1%Washington Post staff: 5.6%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…55.1%

156 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.