U.S., Iran nearing deal to end war and reopen Strait of Hormuz ⁠46%

By Dan Lamothe⁠0% Gerry Shih⁠0%

5/28/2026, 2:53:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Primacy Effect, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 68.7% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 159 faulty-reasoning hits from 83 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠46% (11,977 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.70% of the article peer group.

The United States and Iran have reached a tentative agreement to end their months-long war in the Middle East, senior officials on both sides said Thursday, but it comes with the major caveat that President Donald Trump and his counterparts in Tehran are reviewing it. 
A man raises an Iranian flag Tuesday in front of a billboard in Tehran featuring President Donald Trump and the Strait of Hormuz. 
(Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 5.1%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 68.7%Dan Lamothe: 46.4%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect68.7%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 31.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 3.2%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Dan Lamothe: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect14.5%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 10.2%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 3.7%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 3.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 54.2%Dan Lamothe: 24.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote54.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 54.2%Dan Lamothe: 33.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice54.2%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.9%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dan Lamothe: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

83 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.6%attributed speech80writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAtta Kenare • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Atta Kenare

0%flagged-word coverage
3 attributed words100% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote-56.3 ptsWriter: 56.3%Atta Kenare: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-56.3 ptsWriter: 56.3%Atta Kenare: 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.