STLPR0%

St. Louis recycling task force suggests moving waste pickup from the alley to the curb 9%

By Rachel Lippmann0%

6/2/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 13.9% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 629 faulty-reasoning hits from 454 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.3% and a BS Rank of 9% (20,071 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.70% of the article peer group.

A task force formed to study recycling in St. 
Louis has recommended that the city move its waste collection from the alleyway to the curbs. 
“We decided that we really wanted to bring recycling home. 
We didn’t like the idea that recycling was far away,” Sustainability Director Elysia Russell said Monday as the task force presented its preliminary recommendations to Mayor Cara Spencer. 
The task force was born out of the city’s decision in August to stop collecting recycling from alley dumpsters due to high levels of contamination. 
Trash, yard waste and bulk pickup are still collected from alley dumpsters. 
Recycling is collected at about 40 drop-off locations throughout the city. 
About 20% of homes in St. 
Louis already use roll carts for waste collection. 
The group of 13 people spent about five months studying a new waste collection system in the city. 
It recommended shifting to universal roll carts. 
One cart would be used for trash and yard waste. 
Customers could request a second roll cart for single-stream recycling at no extra cost. 
The city has been collecting waste from dumpsters since the 1980s, said Joe Cunningham, the program manager at Operation Brightside and a member of the task force, and it’s a system that has a lot of pros. 
People don’t have to remember a collection schedule and can take waste to another dumpster if the closest one is full. 
But ultimately, Cunningham said, there are a lot of sanitary, safety and environmental concerns with dumpsters. 
“We also have inequitable impacts on nearby residents,” he said. 
“Even though a dumpster is open for all residents to use, its benefits and downsides are going to most impact the resident who it is closest to.” 
Spencer told the task force she appreciated the work it had done to find ways to boost recycling in the city. 
“The more we can recycle, the more we can divert into green waste, the better off we all are,” she said. 
But she noted that roll carts might not work for residents with physical disabilities or who are older and have mobility challenges. 
And there are other reasons that roll carts might not work in the city, said task force member Tom Bratkowski, who lives in the Old North St. 
Louis neighborhood. 
“We have hills where there might be 15 steps that the person would have to get their cart down,” he said. 
“It’s going to stay out there on the street continuously. 
It’s not like we all have front driveways.” 
The task force is waiting on the results of a roll cart feasibility study before making final nonbinding recommendations later this year. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.9%Rachel Lippmann: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias9.9%This article: 5.5%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect5.5%This article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 4.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias4.6%This article: 4.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias4.8%This article: 5.7%Rachel Lippmann: 7.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Rachel Lippmann: 1.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Rachel Lippmann: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect12.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.1%Rachel Lippmann: 3.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 2.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.9%Rachel Lippmann: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization13.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.1%Rachel Lippmann: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.1%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.6%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal4.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.7%Rachel Lippmann: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.2%This article: 6.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 6.2%Rachel Lippmann: 1.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Lippmann: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.1%

454 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers63%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSt. Louis recycling task force • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageElysia Russell • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJoe Cunningham • 37 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Cunningham • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Cunningham • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Cunningham • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Cunningham • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCara Spencer • 22 words • 0.0% coverageTom Bratkowski • 27 words • 0.0% coverageTom Bratkowski • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTom Bratkowski • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTom Bratkowski • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTom Bratkowski • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Elysia Russell

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words9.8% of attributed speech39% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elysia Russell: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elysia Russell: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Elysia Russell: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Elysia Russell: 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.