Have Your SNAP Benefits Ever Been Stolen? Help ProPublica Investigate. 39%

By Cassandra Garibay0% Eli Hager0%

6/23/2026, 6:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Indoctrination, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 65 hits. Analysis detected 400 faulty-reasoning hits from 201 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of 39% (12,552 of 20,378 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.60% of the article peer group.

Have you ever tried to use your electronic benefit transfer card to pay for groceries only to find that your SNAP benefits were gone? 
You may have been the victim of EBT theft. 
EBT theft happens when someone is able to get information off your EBT card in order to steal your Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits. 
You may not have immediately realized you were stolen from, only that there were less funds in your account than there should’ve been. 
If so, you’re not alone  it’s a widespread issue that affects hundreds of thousands of SNAP recipients each year. 
**If you think your benefits may have been stolen, we would like to hear from you. 
**We need your help to understand the impact that EBT theft has on communities. 
To share your experience, fill out the survey below. 
Our reporters read every response and may follow up with you. 
*Don’t have SNAP benefits but know someone who does? 
You can also help by sending this form to them. 
If you have anything else you would like to share about SNAP or Medicaid generally, you can email us at [email protected]. 
* 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.4%Cassandra Garibay: 2.9%ProPublica: 2.9%Confirmation Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Cassandra Garibay: 5.5%ProPublica: 2.6%Availability Heuristic10.0%This article: 10.0%Cassandra Garibay: 2.5%ProPublica: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic10.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 2.9%ProPublica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.3%Cassandra Garibay: 8.1%ProPublica: 6.8%Framing Effect32.3%This article: 23.4%Cassandra Garibay: 5.8%ProPublica: 0.5%Loss Aversion23.4%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Cassandra Garibay: 3.4%ProPublica: 8.2%Negativity Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.5%Cassandra Garibay: 1.4%ProPublica: 3.8%Appeal to Authority5.5%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Cassandra Garibay: 5.0%ProPublica: 2.8%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.0%Cassandra Garibay: 5.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Bandwagon10.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 5.5%ProPublica: 4.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 11.9%Cassandra Garibay: 3.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Begging the Question11.9%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.4%Cassandra Garibay: 2.9%ProPublica: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.4%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 18.9%Cassandra Garibay: 4.7%ProPublica: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice18.9%This article: 19.4%Cassandra Garibay: 12.7%ProPublica: 0.8%Indoctrination19.4%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Cassandra Garibay: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Cassandra Garibay: 5.3%ProPublica: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.4%

201 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.5%attributed speech198writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageProPublica • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

ProPublica

100%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +79.8 ptsWriter: 20.2%ProPublica: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-19.7 ptsWriter: 19.7%ProPublica: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.2 ptsWriter: 19.2%ProPublica: 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.