How Philadelphia turned a deadly heat wave into protections that could help millions ⁠84%

By Brady Dennis⁠0%

7/2/2026, 10:00:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Primacy Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 68.8% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 361 faulty-reasoning hits from 77 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,702 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.10% of the article peer group.

Thanks to Thomas Jefferson, we know that July 4, 1776, was a pleasant day in Philadelphia with temperatures that topped out in the mid-70s. 
Two hundred and fifty years later, visitors who descend on the city to celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence — and to watch a World Cup match on July 4 — will find a far more sweltering reality. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.2%Brady Dennis: 7.8%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias31.2%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 7.8%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 68.8%Brady Dennis: 34.4%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect68.8%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.9%Brady Dennis: 12.7%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 51.9%Brady Dennis: 39.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias51.9%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 51.9%Brady Dennis: 13.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect51.9%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 31.2%Brady Dennis: 15.6%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority31.2%This article: 51.9%Brady Dennis: 13.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma51.9%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.9%Brady Dennis: 8.4%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization16.9%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.9%Brady Dennis: 8.4%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion16.9%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 31.2%Brady Dennis: 7.8%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)31.2%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 31.2%Brady Dennis: 7.8%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote31.2%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 68.8%Brady Dennis: 34.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice68.8%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brady Dennis: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

77 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.