BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.2% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,156 faulty-reasoning hits from 844 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.9% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,297 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.20% of the article peer group.

The Chicago Board of Election Commissioners has removed five candidates in the upcoming race for Chicago's first fully elected school board, including two sitting board members. 
On Tuesday the board upheld challenges to the candidacies of Angel Velez, who represents District 9A on the Southwest Side and is the board vice president, and Cydney Wallace, who represents District 8B on the South Side. 
The board also removed newcomers Marlo Barnett and Krista Nichols Alston, as well as Rosita Chatonda, who ran in 2024. 
The decisions so far leave only one candidate in four races, including in Velez and Wallace's districts. 
Ten other districts could also have uncontested races, once the board rules on outstanding challenges. 
Velez and Wallace were both appointed to the school board by Mayor Brandon Johnson. 
Challengers said they didn’t have enough signatures to get on the ballot, and questioned whether their paperwork contained duplicate names, wrong or incomplete addresses and other issues, according to objections submitted to the board. 
Velez said the decision was “frustrating” and “disappointing.” 
He thought he was in good shape when he submitted his petitions. 
Velez said he collected 1,500 signatures, the maximum number allowed. 
He gathered many back in March outside polling places in his district during the primary elections. 
But 80% of those signatures were challenged, he said, and he wound up just short of the 500 valid signatures needed. 
Velez said he thinks the law establishing Chicago’s elected school board makes it too difficult to get on the ballot, especially for candidates who aim to represent low-income areas like Englewood and Auburn Gresham in his own district. 
Those communities often have low voter turnout and it can be harder to collect signatures. 
“People move around a lot, people have unstable housing because of the disinvestment,” he said. 
“That’s the reason why I think it is a structural issue, because if you go to the North Side where a lot of people are registered to vote and come out to vote, it is easier to collect signatures.” 
He points out that all of the candidates booted off the ballot so far were running in districts on the South Side. 
More than half of the 51 candidates for Chicago’s first fully elected school board are facing challenges to their petitions to appear on the November ballot. 
Velez said he hasn’t completely ruled out trying to be a write-in candidate, but he is leaning against it. 
For one, he thinks it would be too difficult to get voters to write in his full name, Angel Luis Velez Rodriguez, which would be needed for the vote to be counted. 
More than half of the 51 candidates vying for a seat on the board faced challenges. 
Each case is treated like a mini-trial with both sides presenting evidence before the board makes a final decision. 
Incumbents Emma Lozano, Aaron “Jitu” Brown and Debby Pope remain on the ballot after challenges against them were withdrawn. 
Challenges against two candidates for school board president, Jessica Biggs and Sendhil Revuluri, were also withdrawn, so they’ll too appear on the ballot. 
Decisions on challenges against two other presidential candidates, Hilario Dominguez and Victor Henderson, are still pending. 
Final decisions are still forthcoming in more than a dozen cases, with many likely coming at the election board’s next meeting on July 28. 
Many of the challenges have been paid for by The Urban Center , a political action committee that’s supportive of charter schools and wants to curtail the influence of the Chicago Teachers Union. 
Last month, the elections board allowed nearly two dozen candidates facing challenges to stay on the ballot after commissioners decided an elections law provision known as the dual-circulation rule didn’t apply to school board races. 
Under state law, people can’t circulate petitions for candidates from two different parties in the same election cycle. 
Challengers wanted to disqualify 22 school board candidates , most of whom are aligned with the CTU, because people who circulated petitions for them also did so for partisan candidates in the March primaries. 
But school board races are nonpartisan. 
Barnett, who filed paperwork to run for a seat in the 9th District, was removed because she didn’t specify whether she was running in District 9A or 9B as she gathered petitions. 
She represented herself in the proceedings and said election officials didn’t communicate that requirement clearly in materials to candidates. 
She noted that in the 2024 school board election, the city was divided into 10 districts, and now there are 20, which created some confusion. 
She said she respected the board’s decision, but that the objections process creates barriers that can discourage people from seeking office. 
Instead, she said, officials should make it easier for people to participate. 
“I work so I had to take off today, pay for parking, and you know a lot of people don’t have the time,” Barnett said. 
“If they want better candidates to select from, to give voters a choice, then they need to step up their game.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.2%Emmanuel Camarillo: 3.4%WBEZ: 2.0%Confirmation Bias13.2%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.7%WBEZ: 2.6%Availability Heuristic7.6%This article: 1.8%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.6%WBEZ: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic1.8%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.5%WBEZ: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 4.1%WBEZ: 4.2%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.6%WBEZ: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.1%WBEZ: 2.5%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 2.5%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.4%WBEZ: 0.9%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 17.2%Emmanuel Camarillo: 4.8%WBEZ: 5.2%Negativity Bias17.2%This article: 4.7%Emmanuel Camarillo: 2.6%WBEZ: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 4.5%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.7%WBEZ: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error4.5%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.6%WBEZ: 0.9%In-Group Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.3%WBEZ: 1.0%Recency Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.3%WBEZ: 3.1%Appeal to Authority3.9%This article: 2.5%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.4%WBEZ: 0.9%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.7%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.5%WBEZ: 0.2%Circular Reasoning2.7%This article: 13.4%Emmanuel Camarillo: 3.8%WBEZ: 3.0%Hasty Generalization13.4%This article: 3.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.6%WBEZ: 0.1%Red Herring3.9%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.6%WBEZ: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion7.0%This article: 3.2%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.5%WBEZ: 0.4%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 7.6%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.3%WBEZ: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.6%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.8%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.3%WBEZ: 0.3%Composition/Division1.8%This article: 7.6%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.7%WBEZ: 2.3%Anecdotal7.6%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.0%WBEZ: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.7%WBEZ: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.2%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.2%WBEZ: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice1.2%This article: 3.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 1.3%WBEZ: 1.4%Indoctrination3.9%This article: 4.6%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.8%WBEZ: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.6%This article: 3.9%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.6%WBEZ: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Emmanuel Camarillo: 0.0%WBEZ: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

844 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech474writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 10 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 38 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 39 words • 100.0% coverageAngel Velez • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAngel Velez • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMarlo Barnett • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMarlo Barnett • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMarlo Barnett • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMarlo Barnett • 12 words • 100.0% coverageMarlo Barnett • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMarlo Barnett • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Marlo Barnett

100%flagged-word coverage
123 attributed words33% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+26.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Marlo Barnett: 26.8%26.8%Politically Right Leaning -7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Marlo Barnett: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.1 ptsWriter: 2.1%Marlo Barnett: 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.