BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 35.4% saturation with 235 hits. Analysis detected 1,105 faulty-reasoning hits from 663 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.9% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,137 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.90% of the article peer group.

Oystercatchers, Known for Sharp Bills and Beady Eyes, Are Making a Comeback (Maria) 
The author writes , “On a pristine Rhode Island beach teeming with seabirds, biologists sneak up on a pair of American oystercatcher chicks. 
Just as they try to capture them, one of the football-size birds scampers into a salt pond. 
Eventually, the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service biologists catch, measure and clip leg bands on both. 
…The work is part of a nationwide effort to restore the oystercatcher’s population on the coasts of the Americas. 
The birds were largely wiped out in New England by the turn of the 20th century, but their numbers are now rising.” 
Video: A Look at ICE Air: Inside America’s Secret Deportation Network (Dana) 
From 9News : “A months-long, nationwide investigation is now shedding light on what happens between the moment someone is detained and when they’re removed from the country.” 
A Year Into a National Guard Deployment, DC Residents Say They Live in ‘a City Under Siege’ (Sean) 
The author writes , “Every night as dusk settles in Lincoln Park, the sound of spoons and ladles banging metal pots and pans fills the air for five minutes straight, followed by the chant ‘We’ll be back.’ 
This nightly ritual is known as a cacerolazo , a form of resistance that dates back to the 1830s, from France to Latin America. 
Residents all over Washington DC have been participating in it almost every night for nearly a year, starting when Donald Trump deployed thousands of national guard troops to the city. 
 Their protests are some of the few in a city that has otherwise become uncomfortably accustomed to the troops in their camouflage fatigues and gun holsters patrolling neighborhoods as part of a presidential executive order declaring a crime emergency last August.” 
German Politician Resigns Over Surrogacy Child Controversy (Bethany) 
The authors write , “German center-right politician Jens Spahn has resigned as parliamentary group leader of the country’s governing coalition after being accused of hypocrisy over his use of a surrogate mother in the US to have a child. 
Surrogacy is prohibited in Germany  a policy backed by his Christian Democrat party (CDU) and, several years ago, by Spahn himself  although raising a child born to a surrogate mother abroad is not.” 
Collapsing Mountains in Alaska Are Causing Massive Tsunamis (Laura) 
From High Country News : “Evidence suggests a sharp uptick in the number of landslide-generated tsunamis in Alaska over the last decade or more. 
In 2015, a slide at Taan Fjord, 400 miles northwest of Tracy Arm, launched a 630-foot run-up. 
And in Prince William Sound, a creeping landslide near the Barry Glacier threatens to launch a tsunami potentially even larger than Tracy Arm’s. 
Scientists, land managers and tour operators are scrambling for answers. 
And they expect more slides as glaciers continue to shrink. 
This emerging climate-related hazard threatens communities, infrastructure and boats big and small, including the cruise ships that bring nearly 2 million visitors to Alaska yearly.” 
Scientists Discover Why Exercise Reverses Muscle Aging (Mili) 
The author writes , “Researchers have uncovered a molecular ‘switch’ that helps explain why exercise keeps aging muscles healthy. 
By reducing levels of a gene called DEAF1, physical activity allows older muscles to clear out damage, repair themselves, and maintain strength.” 
Why Is Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey So Controversial? 
(Reader Jim) 
From Al Jazeera : “Christopher Nolan’s adaptation of The Odyssey , an epic poem composed nearly 2,800 years ago, has drawn a flood of criticism  starting even before audiences had seen a single frame. 
The controversy has centered largely on casting, but it also reflects broader debates about historical authenticity, identity and who gets to retell one of humanity’s oldest stories. 
Here’s a look at some of the more heated conversations that the film has evoked.” 
Oystercatchers, Known for Sharp Bills and Beady Eyes, Are Making a Comeback originally appeared on WhoWhatWhy 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 5.0%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.9%WhoWhatWhy: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.3%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 6.2%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 4.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.4%WhoWhatWhy: 3.2%Optimism Bias5.0%This article: 8.6%Whowhatwhy Editors: 4.5%WhoWhatWhy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias8.6%This article: 35.4%Whowhatwhy Editors: 20.1%WhoWhatWhy: 14.3%Negativity Bias35.4%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.0%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.3%Halo Effect0.0%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: 4.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.5%WhoWhatWhy: 1.0%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.9%WhoWhatWhy: 3.8%Ad Hominem5.9%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.6%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.9%WhoWhatWhy: 3.1%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 4.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.9%False Dilemma4.1%This article: 3.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 1.3%Slippery Slope3.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 5.7%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.5%WhoWhatWhy: 0.9%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 21.3%Whowhatwhy Editors: 7.1%WhoWhatWhy: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion21.3%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.8%WhoWhatWhy: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.8%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.3%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Composition/Division3.8%This article: 3.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.2%WhoWhatWhy: 3.2%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.8%WhoWhatWhy: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 5.9%WhoWhatWhy: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.5%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.9%WhoWhatWhy: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 2.1%WhoWhatWhy: 9.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 4.1%Whowhatwhy Editors: 1.4%WhoWhatWhy: 1.6%Indoctrination4.1%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 3.6%WhoWhatWhy: 3.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.0%WhoWhatWhy: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Whowhatwhy Editors: 0.6%WhoWhatWhy: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.8%

663 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.