Blind date: ‘Distance shouldn’t stand in the way of love … I did have to catch the last train home though’ ⁠6%

By Guardian staff reporter⁠40%

5/16/2026, 5:00:03 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 12.1% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 465 faulty-reasoning hits from 512 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠6% (20,037 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

Frances, 77, a retired marketing manager, meets Eddie, 86, an activist 
Frances on Eddie 
What were you hoping for? 
A lovely evening with pleasant company. 
First impressions? 
Eddie looked much younger and fitter than I had expected. 
He had bought me flowers and a thoughtful card which helped break the ice. 
What did you talk about? 
Politics. 
His interest in animal rights and protests. 
My interests in golf and volunteering. 
Everything! 
Most awkward moment? 
None. 
Good table manners? 
Excellent. 
Best thing about Eddie? 
His openness to other views. 
Although he has strong opinions on politics and animal rights, he was willing to accept different points of view. 
He was very thoughtful, kind and caring. 
Would you introduce Eddie to your friends? 
I’m not sure many of them would have a lot in common. 
Describe Eddie in three words 
Political, fit and caring. 
What do you think Eddie made of you? 
I hope he thought I was OK, and with my heart in the right place. 
Did you go on somewhere? 
Only to the bus stop. 
And … did you kiss? 
Just a hug on arrival and departure. 
If you could change one thing about the evening what would it be? 
I don’t think I’d change anything. 
Eddie was good company and the food and drink in the restaurant were excellent. 
Marks out of 10? 
A strong 8. 
Would you meet again? 
We exchanged numbers but the distance – he lives more than 100 miles away – might prove prohibitive. 
We did talk about the possibility of a picnic together, though. 
Eddie on Frances 
What were you hoping for? 
A femme fatale to make a better world. 
Failing that, two strangers enjoying each other’s company over Italian food. 
First impressions? 
Smart, great appearance, an easy-to-be-with manner. 
What did you talk about? 
Does love make the world go round? 
What are we looking for – how do we see the future when time is not on the table? 
Good table manners? 
With Italian gusto I knocked over a glass of red. 
Frances kindly rearranged the table. 
Best thing about Frances? 
Straight, honest talker. 
Good listener. 
Would you introduce Frances to your friends? 
No. 
Frances is way too gentle for my activist friends. 
Describe Frances in three words 
Lovely caring nature. 
Best thing about Frances? 
An ambitious dreamer, sense of purpose, loads of good energy. 
Did you go on somewhere? 
I believe that distance shouldn’t stand in the way of love, so I met Frances even though she was in a different city. 
I did have to catch the last train though … 
And … did you kiss? 
No. 
If you could change one thing about the evening what would it be? 
No change. 
Marks out of 10? 
10. 
Would you meet again? 
I feel we are at a different stage of our journeys, but we did exchange numbers. 
Frances and Eddie ate at Vivo restaurant in Nottingham. 
Fancy a blind date? 
Email blind.date@theguardian.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Guardian staff reporter: 0.9%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.8%Guardian staff reporter: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 2.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.1%Guardian staff reporter: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 3.2%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.2%Guardian staff reporter: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.2%This article: 5.7%Guardian staff reporter: 2.2%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 5.5%Guardian staff reporter: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.5%This article: 3.1%Guardian staff reporter: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.7%Guardian staff reporter: 3.5%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias10.7%This article: 3.5%Guardian staff reporter: 1.4%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 6.3%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Guardian staff reporter: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Guardian staff reporter: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 1.8%Guardian staff reporter: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.8%This article: 12.1%Guardian staff reporter: 9.8%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect12.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Guardian staff reporter: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.4%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 1.4%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.7%Guardian staff reporter: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Guardian staff reporter: 3.0%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.0%Guardian staff reporter: 4.3%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion2.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.7%Guardian staff reporter: 1.4%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.7%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 1.5%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.1%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Guardian staff reporter: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.1%Guardian staff reporter: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.1%This article: 2.1%Guardian staff reporter: 5.2%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice2.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 1.1%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 1.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian staff reporter: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Guardian staff reporter: 0.3%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.2%

512 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers63%attributed speech192writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 10 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 1 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 7 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 6 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 5 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 19 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 6 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 18 words • 0.0% coverageFrances • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 8 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 7 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 10 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 3 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 1 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 23 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageEddie • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Frances

86%flagged-word coverage
173 attributed words54% of attributed speech20% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.9 ptsWriter: 10.9%Frances: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.7 ptsWriter: 5.7%Frances: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Frances: 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.