A camel, a fractured pelvis, and a travel insurance lesson ⁠51%

By Dr. Brian Goldman⁠0%

6/11/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Anecdotal, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 46.6% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 187 faulty-reasoning hits from 58 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,903 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.20% of the article peer group.

Carol Ann McDevitt spent two years looking forward to a trip to Egypt. 
But an accident on a camel ride completely changed her travel plans and her understanding of travel insurance. 
McDevitt and other Canadians share what people should know about travel health policies before packing their bags. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.3%Dr. Brian Goldman: 8.0%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias29.3%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 16.5%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.1%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 46.6%Dr. Brian Goldman: 24.2%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect46.6%This article: 31.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.1%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion31.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 3.6%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 7.8%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.4%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Dr. Brian Goldman: 20.2%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.2%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.4%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.1%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 2.5%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 6.3%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 3.1%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.6%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 16.9%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 6.5%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 29.3%Dr. Brian Goldman: 22.0%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization29.3%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 5.9%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 29.3%Dr. Brian Goldman: 11.3%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion29.3%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 2.5%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 31.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 14.7%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)31.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 31.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 18.2%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal31.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 2.4%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 2.1%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.4%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 1.8%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.2%Dr. Brian Goldman: 20.1%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice17.2%This article: 29.3%Dr. Brian Goldman: 15.9%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination29.3%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 31.0%Dr. Brian Goldman: 5.5%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…31.0%

58 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker22%attributed speech45writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageCarol Ann McDevitt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Carol Ann McDevitt

0%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -40.0 ptsWriter: 40.0%Carol Ann McDevitt: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-37.8 ptsWriter: 37.8%Carol Ann McDevitt: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.2 ptsWriter: 22.2%Carol Ann McDevitt: 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.