BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.8% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 640 faulty-reasoning hits from 697 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 12.6% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,462 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.10% of the article peer group.

Anadolu // Getty Images 
Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: 
On April 20, 2008, Father Adelir Antônio de Carli flew above Brazil in a chair fastened to 1,000 party balloons, also known as cluster-ballooning, in an attempt to raise money for a chapel. 
To prepare for the flight, the priest took paragliding, mountaineering, and jungle survival lessons to be prepared for every contingency. 
Unfortunately, strong winds diverted his journey to the Atlantic Ocean, and his body was found months later off the southern coast of Brazil. 
If you’re looking to raise money, you have a few options in today’s internet-connected world. 
Most would opt for a GoFundMe —the go-to platform for raising capital for altruistic causes. 
Have the next best product in mind? 
You could always try a Kickstarter. 
But in April 2008, a year or two before those platforms ever existed, Brazilian priest Adelir Antônio de Carli decided on a more headline-grabbing approach. 
De Carli was hoping to raise the funds necessary to develop a spiritual rest stop for truck drivers in the Brazilian port city of Paranaguá, where long-haulers could sometimes be stuck days waiting to receive freight for transport. 
The idea was simple, if dangerous: de Carli would attempt to capture the world record for cluster-ballooning by attaching 1,000 party balloons to a chair and flying for 20 hours from Paranaguá to Dourados, in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso do Sul, reaching altitudes as high as 19,000 feet. 
De Carli didn’t attempt this daredevil flight without significant preparation. 
In addition to (perhaps expected) paragliding training, he took jungle-survival and mountaineering courses to be prepared for any circumstances he might encounter upon landing. 
But despite the upfront work, as often happens with notably risky endeavors, things didn’t go according to plan. 
Within an hour of starting the flight, which de Carli undertook on April 20, 2008, unexpected winds had driven him far off course. 
“He told us he was beginning to descend over the ocean, but never said he was about to crash into the water,” a team member involved with the flight, Carlos Bom, told CBS News. 
“There was never any panic in his voice.” 
Then, roughly eight hours into the flight, de Carli lost contact with the Paranaguá port authority, and a massive search for the “balloonist priest  was soon underway. 
But after four days of fruitless scouring of southern Brazil and the outlying waters, the country’s air force eventually called off the search. 
De Carli had disappeared, but people held on to hope. 
“Without a doubt they will find him alive ,” Denise Galla, treasurer of de Carli’s São Cristóvão parish, told NBC News at the time . 
“He’s alive somewhere out there.” 
Unfortunately, de Carli would never be seen alive again. 
But his body was eventually located. 
On July 30, 2008—nearly three months after the flight—a tugboat at sea near the coastal city of Macaé found a body matching de Carli’s description floating in the water. 
“We were almost certain that it was the priest due to various elements, such as the clothes and material used in the balloon trip,” Macaé’s chief of police, Daniel Bandeira, said during a press conference as reported by the Associated Press . 
“The DNA only confirmed our suspicions.” 
While de Carli’s daredevil journey ended in tragedy , his remains were eventually transferred back to his hometown of Paranaguá, where he received a hero’s welcome. 
Darren lives in Portland, has a cat, and writes/edits about sci-fi and how our world works. 
You can find his previous stuff at Gizmodo and Paste if you look hard enough. 
Why Did Four Stranded Sailors Say No to Rescue? 
We May Have Botched Our Global Warming Timeline 
We May Have Been Wrong About the Origin of Life 
Why Four Submarines Disappeared in 1968 
Rockets Are Badly Polluting the Upper Atmosphere 
How the CIA Read 100 Nations’ Secrets 
The Mystery of the Missing Lighthouse Keepers 
The Truth Behind Japan’s “Atlantis” 
The Grim Engineering of Anti-Vampire Burials 
A Stolen Gold Sculpture Ended Up Buried for Years 
A New Formula for Pi Is Here 
Earth’s Hidden Eighth Continent Is No Longer Lost 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Darren Orf: 4.6%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 6.0%Darren Orf: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias6.0%This article: 4.3%Darren Orf: 4.3%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Darren Orf: 2.7%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias4.6%This article: 7.5%Darren Orf: 4.0%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Darren Orf: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 2.6%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias2.6%This article: 9.8%Darren Orf: 6.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Darren Orf: 2.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Darren Orf: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.9%Darren Orf: 7.7%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority0.9%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Darren Orf: 4.5%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.2%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon2.2%This article: 7.3%Darren Orf: 3.7%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 0.7%Darren Orf: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question0.7%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 3.7%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.8%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Darren Orf: 3.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 2.3%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.5%Darren Orf: 2.4%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote5.5%This article: 4.9%Darren Orf: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 3.9%Darren Orf: 8.0%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice3.9%This article: 2.2%Darren Orf: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Darren Orf: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Darren Orf: 0.4%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.3%

697 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers17%attributed speech577writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageCBS News • 34 words • 100.0% coverageCarlos Bom • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageNBC News • 25 words • 100.0% coverageDenise Galla • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 42 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Bandeira • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

NBC News

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words21% of attributed speech45% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%NBC News: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -10.1 ptsWriter: 10.1%NBC News: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%NBC News: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.6 ptsWriter: 2.6%NBC News: 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.