Suscríbase al Kiosco Digital 99%

6/24/2022, 11:23:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, In-Group Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 47.4% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 486 faulty-reasoning hits from 192 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 99.2% and a BS Rank of 99% (316 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 98.60% of the article peer group.

Suscríbase al Kiosco Digital 
Encuentre noticias sobre su comunidad, entretenimiento, eventos locales y todo lo que desea saber del mundo del deporte y de sus equipos preferidos. 
La mitad de la población de Los Ángeles es de origen latino, y muchos de ellos prefieren recibir información de su comunidad en español. 
Por eso, con este boletín, queremos empezar una conversación permanente con nuestros lectores hispanohablantes. 
Queremos ayudar a entender lo que está ocurriendo en nuestro alrededor. 
Cada semana les ofreceremos lo mejor de Los Ángeles y descubriremos juntos los múltiples atractivos que nos ofrece la ciudad y la región del sur de California. 
Y en temas más variados le traeremos temas de opinión, historias de empresarios, de mujeres, de líderes que han sobresalido y que son grandes ejemplos para nuestra comunidad. 
Compartiremos con ustedes los lugares que hemos visitado, los sitios en los que hemos comido y hasta los libros que estamos leyendo. 
Pero para que esto sea una verdadera conversación, queremos escucharlos, queremos que nos escriban y compartan sus puntos de vista con nosotros. 
¿Tiene preguntas, comentarios o sugerencias? 
Síganos en Twitter @latimesespanol y en Instagram @latimesespanol 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 12.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic12.5%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 47.4%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect47.4%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.1%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias34.4%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect14.6%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.5%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 18.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question18.8%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote11.5%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.2%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice17.2%This article: 35.9%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination35.9%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 34.4%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…34.4%

192 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

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

Analysis

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