How the Iran War Has Rippled Across the World ⁠66%

By Pablo Robles⁠0% Agnes Chang⁠0%

3/29/2026, 8:43:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Pessimism Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 80.1% saturation with 438 hits. Analysis detected 1,190 faulty-reasoning hits from 547 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,080 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.50% of the article peer group.

Butter chicken has disappeared from some Indian menus. 
So has dosa. 
These slow-cooking staples consume cooking gas, which has become harder to get from India’s suppliers in the Gulf. 
Australian farmers are planting less wheat. 
Farmers around the world are worried about their harvests as fertilizer prices rise. 
A third of the world’s fertilizer is shipped through the Strait of Hormuz. 
South Koreans were urged to take shorter showers. 
Much of the energy they use to heat water comes from the Middle East. 
A shorter workweek in Sri Lanka. 
A shorter school week in Laos. 
To curb commutes and conserve fuel, Sri Lanka declared Wednesdays a public holiday, and Laos adopted a three-day class schedule. 
Track suits could get more expensive. 
The polyester in them is made from petrochemicals. 
Oil and gas prices are rising. 
Party balloons may be harder to find. 
Qatar produces a third of the world’s helium, a byproduct of natural gas. 
As production and exports halt, balloon suppliers may run short. 
Formula 1 canceled some races. 
With missiles targeting Gulf nations, competitions in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia were scratched. 
Concerts were postponed. 
Shakira, Christina Aguilera and others postponed shows in the region over security concerns. 
Cancer drugs might not reach some patients on time. 
Shutdowns in cargo hubs like Dubai and Doha threaten medicines that must be kept refrigerated. 
Buying a house in the United States is more expensive. 
Oil prices are driving fears of higher inflation, pushing up mortgage rates. 
Costlier sugar. 
Sugar mills in Brazil, the world’s biggest producer, may switch to making more biofuel to cash in on high energy prices. 
Rising airfares. 
Airlines are paying more for jet fuel, and passing along the costs. 
Falling gold. 
Usually a safe investment in turmoil, gold has fallen for myriad reasons including speculative investors cashing out gold investments. 
Tens of thousands of flights canceled. 
With some airspace closed in the Middle East, carriers have had to suspend routes. 
At the same time, jet fuel costs are soaring. 
Venezuela gets to export fertilizer again. 
The Trump administration loosened sanctions to help U.S. farmers. 
Even the chess world has been shaken up. 
A grandmaster withdrew from a major competition in Cyprus over safety concerns. 
A drone hit a British base there early in the war. 
Russia is getting a little richer. 
Surging energy prices are shoring up Russia’s oil-heavy economy. 
Ukraine may run short on Patriot missiles. 
The war has depleted stocks of the U.S. interceptors used by Kyiv to fend off Russian attacks. 
Thailand’s premier wore short-sleeved shirts to work and urged others to do the same. 
Government offices are required to cap air conditioner use to conserve energy. 
Take the stairs. 
Leave the mall. 
To conserve energy, the Philippines asked civil servants to skip the elevator, and Egypt curtailed shopping hours five days a week. 
Zara clothes piled up at airports in Bangladesh. 
Textile exports have also been disrupted by the canceled flights. 
Ceramics factories in India stopped firing their kilns. 
The kilns need natural gas or propane. 
Gas lines are back. 
Even in Texas. 
Worried about a price spike, drivers in San Antonio lined up for 30 minutes at a Costco. 
Pragati K.B., Sui-Lee Wee, Anupreeta Das, and Alex Traveli contributed reporting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Pablo Robles: 2.9%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.9%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Pablo Robles: 3.8%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect1.8%This article: 3.8%Pablo Robles: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.8%This article: 4.6%Pablo Robles: 1.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 1.5%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Pablo Robles: 4.6%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias13.0%This article: 10.2%Pablo Robles: 6.4%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 1.6%Pablo Robles: 0.4%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias1.6%This article: 3.7%Pablo Robles: 0.9%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error3.7%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Pablo Robles: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.1%This article: 1.1%Pablo Robles: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%Pablo Robles: 0.6%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias1.6%This article: 0.5%Pablo Robles: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.5%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.0%Pablo Robles: 1.0%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.8%Pablo Robles: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.8%Pablo Robles: 3.1%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.0%Pablo Robles: 1.4%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion4.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 32.4%Pablo Robles: 12.1%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.4%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.0%Pablo Robles: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division2.0%This article: 8.2%Pablo Robles: 4.2%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal8.2%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.1%Pablo Robles: 4.0%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.1%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 80.1%Pablo Robles: 20.0%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote80.1%This article: 2.2%Pablo Robles: 0.5%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 5.9%Pablo Robles: 1.5%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice5.9%This article: 3.3%Pablo Robles: 1.4%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination3.3%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Pablo Robles: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Pablo Robles: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

547 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers2.6%attributed speech533writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageFormula 1 • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTrump administration • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump administration

100%flagged-word coverage
9 attributed words64% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump administration: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+20.5 ptsWriter: 79.5%Trump administration: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Trump administration: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Trump administration: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Trump administration: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.