KUER0%

UVU helped digitize America’s birth certificate, bringing its drafting to life 10%

By Pamela McCall0%

7/3/2026, 8:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Optimism Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 26.2% saturation with 152 hits. Analysis detected 874 faulty-reasoning hits from 581 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.9% and a BS Rank of 10% (18,534 of 20,454 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.60% of the article peer group.

The Declaration of Independence may fit onto one long piece of parchment paper, but a lot went into drafting it. 
A team from Utah helped create a new digital tool that lets readers dig into all the details. 
Given today’s technology, the idea of writing the Declaration of Independence with quill pens on parchment paper seems daunting. 
But that’s what the scribe charged with the task had at his disposal in 1776. 
It’s also why a collaboration between Utah Valley University and Pembroke College at Oxford University is called the “Quill Project.” 
They’ve developed an interactive digital model that maps the intricate, step-by-step process of drafting the declaration. 
“How did we get from a simple proposal from the state of Virginia, put forward by Richard Henry Lee, to declare colonies independent and sever allegiance to the crown?” 
said Matthew Brogdon, senior director of the Center for Constitutional Studies at Utah Valley University. 
The project wants to help people visualize those deliberations. 
It digitizes historical manuscripts to illustrate how proposals were adopted into the text. 
The goal is to make that history accessible to people and to underscore how collaborative the process was. 
“How did we get from that simple resolution to the text that we ultimately adopted and published on July 4? 
That's a lengthy process,” said Brogdon, “but it's very important for people to see that the way Americans engage in constitutional self-government is not by locking away a philosopher king in a room, but instead by meeting together in deliberative bodies face to face and working through language that everyone can agree on.” 
This interview has been edited for length and clarity. 
Pamela McCall: How does digitization make these documents more accessible? 
Matthew Brogdon: The Quill Project takes that repository, that archive that we've created, and then allows you to create visual models of it to show people what the process looks like, so that you could ask a question like, well, when was this language inserted or eliminated, and find that point in the deliberative process and see what's happening. 
Also, see who's contributing and what they're contributing, and how frequently, so that you can really see the human input into those deliberative processes. 
PM: How can people navigate the website? 
MB: Right at the top of the front page is a button that says “Explore the Declaration of Independence.” 
What that will take them to is what we have called Jefferson's rough draft. 
What we have been able to do with all of the available documentary evidence is try to discern where that process started. 
What did the first draft that Jefferson produced look like? 
They can use the Quill Project to walk forward from that point and see each of the alterations in the declaration text as they were made. 
PM: How did UVU students contribute to the Quill Project? 
MB: Students are really involved in not just transcribing these documents, but then at some point looking at each action taken and figuring out what is being proposed here. 
How do you classify it in terms of the rules? 
You could almost think of it as a game. 
Certain text gets included if it meets certain requirements; other text gets eliminated. 
So this involves students really understanding the minutiae, the nuts and bolts of how a deliberative process works, and that's a really important kind of knowledge, one that we crucially need as a society. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Pamela McCall: 2.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 1.4%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 2.7%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.7%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.1%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Pamela McCall: 2.6%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias3.8%This article: 12.9%Pamela McCall: 6.6%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 1.8%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 1.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.7%Pamela McCall: 6.5%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias17.7%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 2.3%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Pamela McCall: 5.4%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias15.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.5%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.7%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Pamela McCall: 0.9%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.3%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Pamela McCall: 1.8%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.3%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.2%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.7%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 3.0%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.1%Pamela McCall: 3.2%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma9.1%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%Pamela McCall: 5.2%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.4%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 6.5%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 1.5%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.4%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.5%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Pamela McCall: 0.9%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Pamela McCall: 1.9%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 1.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.4%Pamela McCall: 1.1%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.4%This article: 3.3%Pamela McCall: 2.2%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice3.3%This article: 18.1%Pamela McCall: 2.4%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination18.1%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pamela McCall: 0.5%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.2%Pamela McCall: 1.2%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…26.2%

581 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers45%attributed speech319writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coveragePamela McCall • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 59 words • 100.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 24 words • 100.0% coveragePamela McCall • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coveragePamela McCall • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMatthew Brogdon • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matthew Brogdon

80%flagged-word coverage
235 attributed words90% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +13.7 ptsWriter: 21.6%Matthew Brogdon: 35.3%35.3%Indoctrination+6.3 ptsWriter: 16.3%Matthew Brogdon: 22.6%22.6%Quote-first Misdirection-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Matthew Brogdon: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Matthew Brogdon: 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.