July is Yellowstone National Park’s deadliest month 48%

By Andrew Paul24%

7/16/2026, 6:58:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.9% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 1,060 faulty-reasoning hits from 447 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.3% and a BS Rank of 48% (11,027 of 21,112 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.20% of the article peer group.

Over four million people from all over the world visit Yellowstone National Park every year to admire its grandeur and beauty. 
Unfortunately, not every visit ends with gorgeous photos to show off to friends. 
All those visitors statistically ensure that some trips will occasionally go awry—or turn deadly. 
But should you fear for life while trekking through Yellowstone? 
The legal team Beck, Amsden, and Stalpes in Montana recently reviewed nearly two decades of fatality reports from the popular national park to get a sense of the unfortunate outcomes, and quickly identified some key takeaways. 
After tallying up the tragedies between 2007 and 2024, they found that a total of 75 people died inside Yellowstone. 
However, the vast majority had very little to do with the park’s natural wonders. 
Medical emergencies accounted for 18 deaths, while car crashes came in second place with 17 fatalities. 
Less than 10 people either drowned or died from a fall, while only three reported wildlife incidents proved fatal. 
On the bright side, Yellowstone appears to be pretty safe from violent crime—only one homicide was confirmed in the 17 years of data. 
Who is succumbing to these maladies? 
The numbers are pretty clear there, too. 
Essentially 3-out-of-4 deaths in the park were men, and 57 percent of those who died were at least 45-years-old. 
Children and teens made it out virtually unscathed, with just four percent of deaths occurring to visitors under the age of 14. 
Aside from simply driving through Yellowstone, taking in the sights on foot resulted in 15 deaths through accidental falls, exposure, unexpected medical issues, and run-ins with animals like bison or bears. 
One of the more unsurprising details is when these fatalities occur the most. 
Yellowstone sees the most deaths during the tourist months running from May through October, with July featuring nearly 25 percent of all recorded tragedies. 
So if you are an older man driving during the summer, you are statistically the most at risk visitor to the historic national park. 
Of course, simply following the iconic reserve’s guidelines and safety suggestions will greatly increase your chance of survival, no matter who you are. 
If nothing else, it’s at least very unlikely that anyone else will end up like one poor traveler According to the reports , the man fell into a boiling spring while looking for a place to submerge himself June 7, 2016. 
Due to the water’s extreme heat and acidity, his body completely dissolved within just 48 hours, with park rangers only finding his melted shoes and a wallet left behind. 
The post July is Yellowstone National Park’s deadliest month appeared first on Popular Science . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 3.1%Andrew Paul: 2.6%Popular Science: 2.2%Confirmation Bias3.1%This article: 1.6%Andrew Paul: 1.5%Popular Science: 0.8%Anchoring Bias1.6%This article: 9.6%Andrew Paul: 3.1%Popular Science: 2.6%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 5.4%Andrew Paul: 1.1%Popular Science: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Andrew Paul: 3.3%Popular Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias15.0%This article: 5.4%Andrew Paul: 4.5%Popular Science: 3.5%Framing Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.7%Popular Science: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Andrew Paul: 6.9%Popular Science: 4.7%Optimism Bias10.3%This article: 16.3%Andrew Paul: 0.8%Popular Science: 0.7%Pessimism Bias16.3%This article: 19.9%Andrew Paul: 4.4%Popular Science: 3.0%Negativity Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 2.1%Halo Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Andrew Paul: 1.7%Popular Science: 0.9%Recency Bias5.4%This article: 2.9%Andrew Paul: 0.4%Popular Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.1%Andrew Paul: 5.6%Popular Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 7.6%Andrew Paul: 1.2%Popular Science: 0.8%False Dilemma7.6%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.5%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 4.2%Hasty Generalization14.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.1%Popular Science: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.5%Popular Science: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 13.0%Andrew Paul: 3.4%Popular Science: 2.8%Appeal to Emotion13.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.9%Popular Science: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 2.4%Popular Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.6%Popular Science: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.1%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.4%Composition/Division5.1%This article: 15.7%Andrew Paul: 1.9%Popular Science: 2.2%Anecdotal15.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.2%Andrew Paul: 2.2%Popular Science: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.2%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 5.1%Andrew Paul: 0.3%Popular Science: 0.2%Special Pleading5.1%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.2%Andrew Paul: 2.3%Popular Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote9.2%This article: 9.2%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection9.2%This article: 19.9%Andrew Paul: 5.1%Popular Science: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice19.9%This article: 7.4%Andrew Paul: 1.4%Popular Science: 1.3%Indoctrination7.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Paul: 0.0%Popular Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Andrew Paul: 1.0%Popular Science: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.1%

447 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech391writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageBeck, Amsden, and Stalpes • 36 words • 0.0% coverageBeck, Amsden, and Stalpes • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
64%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words100% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.8 ptsWriter: 22.8%Beck, Amsden, and Stalpes: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Beck, Amsden, and Stalpes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Beck, Amsden, and Stalpes: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Beck, Amsden, and Stalpes: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Beck, Amsden, and Stalpes: 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.