Raw Story⁠93%

Lindsey Graham's presumed cause of death revealed by DC medical examiner: report - Raw Story ⁠1%

By Robert Davis⁠75%

7/12/2026, 9:37:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 23.1% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 261 faulty-reasoning hits from 195 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,837 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.80% of the article peer group.

FILE PHOTO: U.S. 
Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) speaks to members of the media prior to the resumption of the Senate impeachment trial of U.S. 
President Donald Trump at the U.S. 
Capitol in Washington, U.S., January 31, 2020. 
REUTERS/Brendan McDermid/File Photo 
Late Sen. 
Lindsey Graham's (R-SC) office released the medical examiner's preliminary findings about his cause of death on Sunday evening. 
The Medical Examiner of the District of Columbia said in their report that Graham suffered from an "aortic dissection due to Arteriosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease," reported Max Cohen of Punchbowl News. 
Said another way, Graham appears to have died from a rupture in his aorta that was caused by fatty plaques that restricted blood flow. 
"The death certificate will be pending until all toxicological and microscopic testing are finalized, and at that point, the death certificate will be updated to reflect the cause of death and appropriately classify the manner of death," reads a statement from the medical examiner's office. 
Graham died late Saturday night after being rushed from his Washington, D.C., residence to George Washington University Hospital, according to reports. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.3%Robert Davis: 9.7%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias12.3%This article: 9.2%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias9.2%This article: 10.8%Robert Davis: 3.4%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Robert Davis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias12.3%This article: 7.7%Robert Davis: 15.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect7.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 23.1%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Robert Davis: 20.5%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 3.6%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.1%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.4%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority15.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 14.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 8.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.2%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.2%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.8%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.3%Robert Davis: 5.8%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.3%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.7%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.4%Robert Davis: 5.5%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote15.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 6.1%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.7%Robert Davis: 13.1%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice7.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 5.0%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

195 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers48%attributed speech102writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageLindsey Graham's (R-SC) office • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMedical Examiner of the District of Columbia • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coveragemedical examiner's office • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words32% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Medical Examiner of the District of Columbia: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Medical Examiner of the District of Columbia: 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.