Ohio State preliminarily agrees to pay $100M to settle sex-abuse claims ⁠30%

By Susan Svrluga⁠0%

6/5/2026, 6:46:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Hindsight Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Fundamental Attribution Error as the most egregious example at 58.5% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 373 faulty-reasoning hits from 106 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠30% (14,920 of 21,175 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.50% of the article peer group.

Ohio State University reached a preliminary agreement to pay about $100 million to settle claims brought by a group of people who said they were sexually abused by a former team doctor. 
The “agreement in principle” is the latest development in a long-running case involving the alleged abuse of hundreds of athletes across at least 15 sports, and other students, dating back to the 1970s. 
An independent investigation launched by the university determined that physician Richard Strauss abused students for more than 20 years and that the university failed to respond appropriately to the complaints. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 30.2%Susan Svrluga: 7.5%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias30.2%This article: 30.2%Susan Svrluga: 7.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic30.2%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 31.1%Susan Svrluga: 14.9%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias31.1%This article: 28.3%Susan Svrluga: 7.1%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias28.3%This article: 10.4%Susan Svrluga: 2.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect10.4%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.1%Susan Svrluga: 15.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias31.1%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 58.5%Susan Svrluga: 14.6%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error58.5%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 31.1%Susan Svrluga: 7.8%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias31.1%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.3%Susan Svrluga: 7.1%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority28.3%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 31.1%Susan Svrluga: 7.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization31.1%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.5%Susan Svrluga: 10.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice41.5%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Susan Svrluga: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

106 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker30%attributed speech74writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageOhio State University • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ohio State University

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-59.5 ptsWriter: 59.5%Ohio State University: 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.