AI-enabled cheating is forcing some schools to go analog 29%

By Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert45% Henry Chandonnet0%

7/11/2026, 12:55:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Begging the Question, and Negativity Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 934 faulty-reasoning hits from 465 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,747 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

Felix Kästle/picture alliance via Getty Images 
Colleges are trying to adapt to the rise of AI and promote students' independent thinking. 
The University of Chicago Law School just rolled out an in-class laptop ban for first-year students. 
As AI becomes more integrated in the legal profession, educators are struggling to strike a balance. 
AI is starting to make some classrooms look a little more old school. 
The University of Chicago Law School is requiring first-year students to keep their laptops closed in class this fall, as part of a broader strategy to ensure students learn to think independently as artificial intelligence becomes ubiquitous in the legal profession . 
The move comes as colleges across the country grapple with how generative AI is reshaping higher education. 
Business Insider reported earlier this month that Brown University said it recently disciplined dozens of students after uncovering what administrators described as a widespread AI-assisted cheating scandal , underscoring how difficult the technology has made traditional take-home assignments and remote assessments. 
Rather than trying to ban AI outright, Chicago Law says it is redesigning its curriculum to separate the skills students should develop on their own from those where AI should be embraced. 
"We need to make sure that the students are learning to think for themselves," Adam Chilton, dean of the University of Chicago Law School, told Business Insider. 
At the same time, he said, "We can't just naively try to pretend that you can turn off AI or that students won't use it or they don't need to know it." 
The school's new strategy includes laptop-free first-year classes, in-person proctored exams that prevent students from accessing outside materials, and oral defenses for major research papers to ensure students can explain and defend their work. 
It is also expanding AI instruction by integrating the technology into legal writing courses, adding more AI-focused classes, and providing students access to legal AI tools , including Harvey and Legora. 
Chilton said educators have been "a little bit asleep at the wheel" by continuing to assign take-home work that students can complete with AI "without thinking for yourself, without learning for yourself." 
He said reports of AI cheating at Brown, Harvard, and other schools reinforced concerns that students could advance through their education without developing rigorous reasoning skills. 
The challenge, he said, is that AI has become indispensable in legal practice. 
Law firms increasingly expect new hires to use technology efficiently and responsibly, making an outright ban unrealistic. 
Instead, Chicago's approach is to create what Chilton called "space for both of these modes of learning"  teaching students to think without AI first, then teaching them how to use it ethically once they've built those foundational skills. 
Read the original article on Business Insider 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 3.4%Business Insider: 2.5%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 6.3%Business Insider: 3.4%Availability Heuristic18.1%This article: 2.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.4%Business Insider: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 5.7%Business Insider: 5.0%Framing Effect20.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.9%Business Insider: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.8%Business Insider: 0.8%Status Quo Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.5%Business Insider: 3.1%Optimism Bias3.2%This article: 3.4%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 2.2%Business Insider: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 15.7%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 15.2%Business Insider: 4.6%Negativity Bias15.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.5%Business Insider: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 2.3%Business Insider: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.6%Business Insider: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.7%Business Insider: 1.3%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.2%Business Insider: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 6.9%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.1%Straw Man6.9%This article: 5.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 2.1%Business Insider: 3.3%Appeal to Authority5.8%This article: 10.5%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.8%Business Insider: 1.2%False Dilemma10.5%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.8%Business Insider: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 2.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.1%Business Insider: 0.1%Circular Reasoning2.8%This article: 14.4%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 7.6%Business Insider: 4.0%Hasty Generalization14.4%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.3%Business Insider: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.7%Business Insider: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.9%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 5.3%Business Insider: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion6.9%This article: 16.3%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.9%Business Insider: 0.7%Begging the Question16.3%This article: 1.9%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 2.2%Business Insider: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.9%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.5%Business Insider: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 2.6%Business Insider: 3.6%Anecdotal8.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.0%Business Insider: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.4%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.4%Business Insider: 0.1%Middle Ground8.4%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.2%Business Insider: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 2.6%Business Insider: 1.2%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.5%Business Insider: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.2%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 5.9%Business Insider: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice8.2%This article: 5.8%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.8%Business Insider: 1.3%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 0.0%Business Insider: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert: 1.2%Business Insider: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.7%

465 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers78%attributed speech100writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Chicago Law School • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageUniversity of Chicago Law School • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageBusiness Insider • 41 words • 0.0% coverageChicago Law • 32 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Chilton • 27 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Chilton • 32 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Chicago Law School • 34 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Chicago Law School • 31 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Chilton • 32 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Chilton • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Chilton • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Chilton • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Business Insider

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words11% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.0 ptsWriter: 22.0%Business Insider: 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.