Next City⁠67%

Urban Health and Safety ⁠99%

8/5/2026, 9:55:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, In-Group Bias, and Composition/Division, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 71.1% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 581 faulty-reasoning hits from 121 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 97.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠99% (433 of 28,624 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.50% of the article peer group.

Next City’s coverage of health and safety draws a clear line between urban policy and residents’ welfare and well-being, and focuses on evidence-based solutions that address health inequities to improve city dwellers’ quality of life. 
Storylines that fall under this beat include social determinants of health, gun violence, pedestrian and cyclist safety, public health policy, urban health systems, COVID-19, mental health and wellness, access to healthy food, access to clean water, police reform and abolition, alternatives to policing, prison reform, alternatives to mass incarceration and the carceral system, criminal justice system reform, community-based public safety, domestic violence and abuse, gender-based violence, child welfare, women’s health, maternal health, violence prevention, violence interruption, gang violence, hate crimes and more. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.9%Next City: 2.4%Confirmation Bias28.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 71.1%Next City: 4.7%Availability Heuristic71.1%This article: 67.8%Next City: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic67.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 28.9%Next City: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias28.9%This article: 32.2%Next City: 14.2%Framing Effect32.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 4.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 5.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 67.8%Next City: 1.8%In-Group Bias67.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 28.9%Next City: 1.8%Halo Effect28.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.9%Next City: 1.5%Appeal to Authority28.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 5.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 28.9%Next City: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)28.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 67.8%Next City: 2.1%Composition/Division67.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.9%Next City: 11.3%Biased Writer Voice28.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 4.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 13.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

121 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.