BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Nature, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 42.2% saturation with 254 hits. Analysis detected 940 faulty-reasoning hits from 602 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.2% and a BS Rank of 58% (12,284 of 28,688 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 57.20% of the article peer group.

New Mexico Wrote Clean Energy Success Story in Just 5 Years (Maria) 
The author writes , “July is the most electricity-intensive time of year in the U.S., and the grid is working hard to keep up. 
In many places, high electricity demand equals high pollution. 
That used to be true in New Mexico, but the state’s electricity supply flipped from majority climate-warming fossil fuels to majority renewables in just five years.” 
Democrats Face Most Contentious  And Crucial  Test Yet With Michigan Primary (Russ) 
The author writes , “Voters are faced with the thorny question of electability: who can win this purple state in November and potentially push Democrats toward a US Senate majority?” 
Domestic Abuse Allegations Rock an Ohio House Race (Sean) 
From The New York Times : “A sordid, yearslong family drama involving two powerful Republican members of Congress from Ohio and allegations of domestic abuse is threatening to put a fairly safe G.O.P. 
House seat at risk in an already challenging midterm election year for the party. 
Representative Max Miller, a second-term Republican representing northeast Ohio whose political rise was fueled by his close relationship to President Trump, has been accused by his ex-wife, Emily Moreno, of domestic abuse against her and their 2-year-old daughter.” 
How Rogue Officers Turned a Nationwide Camera Network Into a Tool For Stalking (Gerry) 
From The Washington Post : “Flock’s array of license-plate cameras was built to fight crime. 
But at least 50 law enforcement officers were charged with or accused of misusing it and other systems.” 
Idaho Is a Finalist To Become a Federal Nuclear Powerhouse  And Home for Waste (Reader Steve) 
From the Idaho Statesman : “Idaho is on the shortlist to become the center of America’s nuclear energy industry  and a warehouse for much of its radioactive waste. 
The Department of Energy announced Tuesday that Idaho is one of five finalists to host a proposed Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campus, part of an aggressive federal push to revive domestic nuclear energy production. 
The hubs aim to ‘support activities across the entire nuclear fuel cycle,’ according to a DOE press release. 
That means fabricating, enriching and, when possible, reprocessing nuclear fuel before permanently storing spent material on site  a decades-long hang-up for nuclear watchdogs and environmental advocates across Southern Idaho.” 
Scientists Find a Simple Way To Stop Cavities Without Drilling (Reader Jim) 
The author writes , “A liquid brushed onto cavities in seconds may spare many young children from pain, infection, and surgery. 
A major U.S. trial found that silver diamine fluoride stopped decay in more than half of treated baby teeth. 
The treatment requires no drilling, shots, or sedation, although it does permanently darken the decayed area.” 
Georgia’s Okefenokee Swamp Among New Additions To Join UNESCO’s World Heritage List (Laura) 
The author writes , “The Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia, an ornate 13th-century Buddhist temple in Thailand and tidal flats in western South Korea were among several sites added to the World Heritage List [this month] at a U.N. committee meeting in South Korea. 
 The Okefenokee Swamp is regarded as one of the world’s largest freshwater ecosystems, encompassing a vast network of wetlands that supports exceptional biodiversity and serves as the source of two major rivers. 
Its largely undisturbed peat beds preserve a 5,000-year record of environmental change, making the swamp both a globally significant natural habitat and a valuable source of information on long-term environmental change, according to a UNESCO description.” 
New Mexico Wrote Clean Energy Success Story in Just 5 Years originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.6%WhoWhatWhy: 5.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Whowhatwhy Editors: 5.5%WhoWhatWhy: 5.3%Framing Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.4%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.8%WhoWhatWhy: 2.3%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.4%Whowhatwhy Editors: 12.8%WhoWhatWhy: 13.7%Negativity Bias24.4%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.7%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Halo Effect11.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.7%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.7%WhoWhatWhy: 4.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.3%WhoWhatWhy: 2.6%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 5.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.7%WhoWhatWhy: 2.2%False Dilemma5.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.2%WhoWhatWhy: 9.2%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.8%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.3%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Burden of Proof6.3%This article: 11.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Appeal to Nature11.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.3%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 2.6%Anecdotal2.3%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.4%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 42.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 7.6%WhoWhatWhy: 2.4%Unattributed Quote42.2%This article: 9.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.8%WhoWhatWhy: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.9%WhoWhatWhy: 17.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.2%WhoWhatWhy: 2.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.4%WhoWhatWhy: 9.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

602 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers24%attributed speech456writer words
Selected voice

The New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words23% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+94.7 ptsWriter: 5.3%The New York Times: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-42.1 ptsWriter: 42.1%The New York Times: 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.