WBUR19%

Women's pro baseball league begins 78%

By Here68% Now Newsroom68%

7/31/2026, 5:03:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Status Quo Bias, with Primacy Effect as the most egregious example at 80% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 178 faulty-reasoning hits from 70 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.2% and a BS Rank of 78% (6,027 of 27,322 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

The brand-new Women's Professional Baseball League begins on Saturday. 
It will be the first time in 70 years that the best women baseball players in the world will compete on a professional stage. 
Host Anthony Brooks learns more with Justine Siegal, a co-founder and the first woman to coach for a Major League Baseball team when she was with the former Oakland Athletics in 2015. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Here: 1.7%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 4.7%Cognoscenti: 1.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 34.3%Here: 23.9%Cognoscenti: 3.0%Framing Effect34.3%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 34.3%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Status Quo Bias34.3%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.8%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 18.2%Cognoscenti: 3.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.5%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.3%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.9%Here: 6.8%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Recency Bias12.9%This article: 80.0%Here: 2.1%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Primacy Effect80.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.4%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 45.7%Here: 8.8%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Appeal to Authority45.7%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 4.0%Cognoscenti: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 2.5%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 1.7%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.3%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.2%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.9%Here: 20.5%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice12.9%This article: 34.3%Here: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Indoctrination34.3%This article: 0.0%Here: 8.5%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Here: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

70 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.