MinnPost17%

Are loons closer relatives to penguins than to ducks? 14%

By Brian Arola45%

7/14/2026, 3:12:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 28% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 381 faulty-reasoning hits from 261 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.4% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,913 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.40% of the article peer group.

Yes. 
The common loon, Minnesota’s state bird, is more closely related to a penguin than a duck. 
Despite loons predominantly living in the northern hemisphere and penguins mostly living in the southern hemisphere, researchers consider them to be genetic cousins. 
Taxonomic analyses placed them in an evolutionary cluster tracing back 40 million to 50 million years ago, along with herons and pelicans. 
While loons and ducks share habitat on Minnesota lakes, they aren’t close relatives. 
Ducks are closer cousins to geese and swans. 
After sharing a common ancestor, penguins and loons developed distinct characteristics. 
Loons can fly, but struggle to move on land; penguins can’t fly, but waddle on land. 
Penguins use flipper-like wings to swim; loons use webbed feet for underwater propulsion. 
They have some similar features, however, including dense bones to help dive underwater and their tuxedo coloring. 
This fact brief is responsive to conversations such as this one. 
MinnPost partners with Gigafact to produce fact briefs  bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. 
Read our methodology to learn how we check claims. 
Sources 
Wisconsin Public Radio Fascinating Facts About Loons From A Biologist Who’s Studied Them For Decades 
National Loon Center Ask the Scientist 
The Loon Project Are Loons Ancient? 
Support the news you rely on 
You rely on MinnPost to report on the things that matter to you. 
And we depend on readers like you to help fund our work. 
Will you make a gift to support our work and keep articles like this one paywall-free? 
Donate now 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 2.2%MinnPost: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 2.4%MinnPost: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Brian Arola: 1.8%MinnPost: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 13.8%Brian Arola: 1.7%MinnPost: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic13.8%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.5%MinnPost: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 8.4%MinnPost: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Brian Arola: 0.5%MinnPost: 0.6%Loss Aversion10.7%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.2%MinnPost: 3.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 3.6%MinnPost: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Brian Arola: 6.1%MinnPost: 6.3%Negativity Bias2.3%This article: 5.0%Brian Arola: 1.4%MinnPost: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.7%MinnPost: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.9%MinnPost: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Brian Arola: 0.3%MinnPost: 2.6%Halo Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.0%MinnPost: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Brian Arola: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.8%Brian Arola: 5.8%MinnPost: 4.0%Appeal to Authority21.8%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.4%MinnPost: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.5%MinnPost: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 3.7%MinnPost: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.8%Brian Arola: 5.6%MinnPost: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion18.8%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.0%MinnPost: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.2%Brian Arola: 4.4%MinnPost: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.2%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.1%Brian Arola: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.5%Burden of Proof6.1%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%Brian Arola: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.4%Composition/Division6.5%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 2.6%MinnPost: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.2%Brian Arola: 2.9%MinnPost: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.2%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.6%MinnPost: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.6%MinnPost: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.0%MinnPost: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.4%Brian Arola: 2.3%MinnPost: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.4%This article: 5.0%Brian Arola: 1.7%MinnPost: 1.7%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 1.9%MinnPost: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brian Arola: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 28.0%Brian Arola: 3.0%MinnPost: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…28.0%

261 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.