KUER⁠0%

April 18 — KUER Mug Stop: Neighborhood Hive ⁠82%

By KUER 90.1⁠0%

2/22/2026, 3:13:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Loss Aversion, and Framing Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 61.4% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 141 faulty-reasoning hits from 145 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (3,945 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.40% of the article peer group.

On Saturday, April 18, KUER will be at Neighborhood Hive in Salt Lake City for a Mug Stop from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. 
Stop by the coffee shop to chat with Morning Edition host Ciara Hulet and other KUER staff, snag an exclusive mug and enjoy some great coffee. 
For a $20 donation, you'll be able to get our new mug designed by local artist Paul Tew. 
This sleek design is only available in-person at our Mug Stops. 
And, as a bonus, you'll be able to fill it up with a free cup of coffee from our friends at Neighborhood Hive. 
Come out, grab a mug and support KUER's Spring Fund Drive. 
Spring Fund Drive Mug Stop: Neighborhood Hive 
Saturday, April 18, 2026 | 9 a.m. - 11 a.m. 
2065 E 2100 S, Salt Lake City 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.3%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.5%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 4.7%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.2%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.3%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.5%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%KUER 90.1: 5.8%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 12.4%KUER 90.1: 1.7%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion12.4%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.4%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.9%KUER 90.1: 3.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias15.9%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.9%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 2.5%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.6%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.2%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 2.5%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.3%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.9%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 2.7%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.9%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.2%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 2.4%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.2%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.1%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.3%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.5%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 3.9%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 1.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.6%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 6.4%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 3.8%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER 90.1: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 61.4%KUER 90.1: 26.3%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…61.4%

145 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech110writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKUER • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageKUER • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

KUER

31%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -39.5 ptsWriter: 70.9%KUER: 31.4%31.4%

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.