Reflecting Pool algae blooms have roared back, reaching highest levels in years ⁠84%

By Meg Kelly⁠0% Maura Judkis⁠0%

6/18/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Sunk Cost Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 80% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 228 faulty-reasoning hits from 60 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,702 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.10% of the article peer group.

Days after the completion this month of a $14 million renovation, the shallow water in the Lincoln Memorial’s Reflecting Pool had more algae in it than at any recorded point in the month of June for at least five years, according to a specialized analysis of satellite data. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 12.6%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 80.0%Meg Kelly: 17.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic80.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 3.3%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Meg Kelly: 11.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect20.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 80.0%Meg Kelly: 10.4%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect80.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Meg Kelly: 21.5%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 2.6%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 10.4%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 2.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 80.0%Meg Kelly: 31.3%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)80.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 2.2%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 3.3%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 6.5%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 9.8%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.0%Meg Kelly: 18.9%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice20.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meg Kelly: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 80.0%Meg Kelly: 10.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…80.0%

60 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.