CBC Radio⁠49%

Train dreams ⁠84%

By Paul Haavardsrud⁠0%

4/9/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Quote-first Misdirection, and Anchoring Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 53.3% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 356 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,522 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.90% of the article peer group.

The dream of high-speed rail has a special place in many Canadian hearts. 
This country was built on a railway, right?! 
Well, soon Canadians may be able to speed between Toronto and Quebec City — all for the low, low cost of roughly $90 billion dollars. 
Paul Haavardsrud talks to the director of the Infrastructure Institute at the U of T, Matti Siemiatycki, about whether high-speed rail is worth pursuing at that price. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 4.2%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 15.9%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias33.3%This article: 10.7%Paul Haavardsrud: 9.3%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.7%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 3.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.5%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 53.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 46.5%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect53.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 33.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 10.8%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 4.2%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 8.3%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 3.2%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 36.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 24.2%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority36.0%This article: 33.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.9%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma33.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 8.7%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 13.8%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion28.0%This article: 10.7%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.7%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question10.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 4.2%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.9%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal17.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 33.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 6.6%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 33.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.3%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground33.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 1.5%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 36.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.9%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection36.0%This article: 13.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 40.6%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice13.3%This article: 17.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination17.3%This article: 17.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 2.8%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Paul Haavardsrud: 5.3%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…33.3%

75 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker36%attributed speech48writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Haavardsrud • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul Haavardsrud

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Haavardsrud: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -52.1 ptsWriter: 52.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-27.1 ptsWriter: 27.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-27.1 ptsWriter: 27.1%Paul Haavardsrud: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.8 ptsWriter: 20.8%Paul Haavardsrud: 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.