Minnesotans can feel confident in election system 27%

By MinnPost staff29%

7/9/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Hasty Generalization, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 58.2% saturation with 342 hits. Analysis detected 1,388 faulty-reasoning hits from 588 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.6% and a BS Rank of 27% (15,471 of 21,196 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.00% of the article peer group.

As President Donald Trump continues to raise doubts about election integrity , a recent audit of Minnesota’s voter registration system gave the state high marks , according to MPR News . 
In a review of 2024 records by the Office of the Legislative Auditor, voter identity verification was completed correctly 99% of the time when done through automated procedures. 
Rates were lower when done manually. 
The audit found that the state could improve its work updating voter records, “including for formerly incarcerated people who have voting rights restored,” the story said. 
In a response to the audit, Secretary of State Steve Simon wrote, “Minnesota is proud of its accurate, fair, secure, accessible and trusted election system.” 
With a win Wednesday night against the Connecticut Sun  the 380th of her career  the Lynx’s Cheryl Reeve became the WNBA’s all-time winningest head coach , reports USA Today . 
“You never dream that it’s going to happen,” Reeve said afterward. 
“What I feel is overwhelming. 
A sense of being blessed. 
For all the people that let me be me , who believed in what we were doing and [helped us find] a way to win.” 
The AP reports that former Wisconsin judge Hannah Dugan , who was charged with felony obstruction in December after thwarting the arrest of a Mexican defendant by ICE agents, will not face jail time. 
Instead, Dugan was fined $5,000. 
The judge who oversaw Dugan’s case described it as “a situation where an otherwise good person , upset by immigration policies in this country, made a bad decision in the moment.” 
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) filed a lawsuit on Tuesday against Hennepin County, alleging the county has not done enough to minimize pollution from the Hennepin Energy Recovery Center (HERC), a giant garbage incinerator near Target Field in Minneapolis. 
Specifically, the suit says Hennepin “isn’t complying with a law requiring clear plans to manage ash produced by burning roughly 365,000 tons of trash each year,” according to reporting by the Sahan Journal . 
In a June response to MCEA’s concerns , the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office said the plan does address state law and that the ash, which county documents describe as non-hazardous , is screened for metals, which are recycled. 
Baristas at the Starbucks at 50th and France , in Edina, voted Tuesday to unionize, making the location the 17th in Minnesota to become part of Starbucks Workers United and one of more than 700 nationwide, according to the Star Tribune . 
In 2022, a Starbucks on Snelling Ave. in St. 
Paul’s Highland Park neighborhood became the first of the coffee chain’s Minnesota locations to unionize. 
It has since closed. 
Bring Me The News reports that a popular social media personality came to the defense of Somali kindergartners in Minnesota who were called out by President Trump on Monday for wearing hijabs at their spring graduation ceremony. 
Ms. 
Rachel, whose legal name is Rachel Accurso, shared a message with her 5.1 million Instagram followers following Trump’s viral post. 
“I saw some of you wore a hijab to your graduation,” Accurso wrote. 
“I am glad you wore something meaningful and special to you and your family. 
I think hijabs are beautiful.” 
She continued, “When you’re older, I hope you look back on your kindergarten graduation and think about how proud your family, friends, teachers, and community were of you.” 
The post Minnesotans can feel confident in election system, audit says appeared first on MinnPost . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%MinnPost staff: 1.6%MinnPost: 2.3%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.6%MinnPost: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%MinnPost staff: 2.4%MinnPost: 3.1%Availability Heuristic3.4%This article: 6.3%MinnPost staff: 0.5%MinnPost: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.5%MinnPost: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%MinnPost staff: 0.5%MinnPost: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias4.8%This article: 6.5%MinnPost staff: 5.8%MinnPost: 6.0%Framing Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.5%MinnPost staff: 1.6%MinnPost: 0.8%Status Quo Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.3%MinnPost staff: 3.5%MinnPost: 2.9%Optimism Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.2%MinnPost: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.3%MinnPost staff: 12.6%MinnPost: 7.2%Negativity Bias24.3%This article: 4.3%MinnPost staff: 0.7%MinnPost: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias4.3%This article: 5.3%MinnPost staff: 1.3%MinnPost: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%MinnPost staff: 0.7%MinnPost: 1.2%In-Group Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%MinnPost staff: 0.8%MinnPost: 2.9%Halo Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.7%MinnPost staff: 0.9%MinnPost: 1.1%Recency Bias0.7%This article: 2.6%MinnPost staff: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 58.2%MinnPost staff: 8.4%MinnPost: 4.6%Appeal to Authority58.2%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.2%MinnPost: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.4%MinnPost: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.8%MinnPost staff: 1.8%MinnPost: 4.6%Hasty Generalization12.8%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 2.3%MinnPost: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%MinnPost staff: 1.1%MinnPost: 0.5%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 17.9%MinnPost staff: 4.9%MinnPost: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion17.9%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.2%MinnPost: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 1.4%MinnPost: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.8%MinnPost staff: 1.2%MinnPost: 0.5%Burden of Proof5.8%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.8%MinnPost: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.0%MinnPost staff: 1.8%MinnPost: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.1%MinnPost: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.0%MinnPost: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.5%MinnPost staff: 1.8%MinnPost: 1.1%Unattributed Quote8.5%This article: 7.0%MinnPost staff: 2.8%MinnPost: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.0%This article: 5.3%MinnPost staff: 3.6%MinnPost: 4.7%Biased Writer Voice5.3%This article: 1.2%MinnPost staff: 1.2%MinnPost: 1.9%Indoctrination1.2%This article: 11.4%MinnPost staff: 2.1%MinnPost: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%MinnPost staff: 0.3%MinnPost: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%MinnPost staff: 1.2%MinnPost: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.4%

588 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers45%attributed speech324writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageSteve Simon • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageCheryl Reeve • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCheryl Reeve • 5 words • 0.0% coverageCheryl Reeve • 5 words • 0.0% coverageCheryl Reeve • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMinnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA) • 41 words • 100.0% coverageSahan Journal • 34 words • 0.0% coverageHennepin County Attorney’s Office • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Accurso • 20 words • 100.0% coverageRachel Accurso • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Accurso • 14 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Accurso • 5 words • 0.0% coverageRachel Accurso • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words16% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA): 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+92.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA): 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA): 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy (MCEA): 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.