BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Anchoring Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 22.5% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 270 faulty-reasoning hits from 200 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.4% and a BS Rank of 61% (8,701 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.20% of the article peer group.

Since the 90s, a stretch of Venice Boulevard on the border of Culver City and Palms has served as a destination for Brazilian food in Los Angeles. 
While Los Angeles lacks an official “Little Brazil,” this is as close as the city gets to an unofficial hub. 
The most obvious landmark is a strip mall at the corner of Venice and Westwood called the Brazilian Mall, whose exterior is splashed with a colorful tile mural of Brazilian iconography like Christ the Redeemer, anchored by a stunning covered patio festooned with Brazilian flags. 
In the ensuing decades, restaurants have come and gone, but the neighborhood remains a unique destination for Brazilian food in the city. 
Visitors can sample Brazilian pizza, sandwiches, homestyle cooking, and, of course, barbecue. 
Since the pandemic, however, the rising costs in Culver City has made it harder to launch new businesses. 
Pedroca’s Burguer, which operated out of a shared kitchen in the Brazilian Mall, wasn’t able to find a space in Culver City. 
Instead, this month owners Pedro and Thiago Carvalho opened farther south in Lawndale, slinging Brazilian burgers, piled high with the traditional corn and potato sticks. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Meghan McCarron: 3.4%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.0%Meghan McCarron: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Meghan McCarron: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.0%Meghan McCarron: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias11.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Meghan McCarron: 6.3%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias12.5%This article: 9.0%Meghan McCarron: 2.3%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.5%Meghan McCarron: 11.3%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect22.5%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.0%Meghan McCarron: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma10.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Meghan McCarron: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.0%Meghan McCarron: 6.8%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.5%Meghan McCarron: 25.4%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice22.5%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meghan McCarron: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Meghan McCarron: 5.4%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.5%

200 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.