BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 199 faulty-reasoning hits from 177 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.3% and a BS Rank of 13% (24,785 of 28,461 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.10% of the article peer group.

Methodist Hospital has acquired 18 Texas MedClinic urgent care facilities in the San Antonio area as part of HCA Healthcare’s Texas MedClinic acquisition, according to an Aug. 3 news release from the hospital system. 
What we know 
The clinics transitioned to CareNow Urgent Care , which is part of the Methodist Healthcare network, on Aug. 
1. 
Two of the 18 clinics acquired are located in New Braunfels at: 
958 I-35 N. frontage road 
1922 Hwy. 
46 W. 
The clinics provide care for children 3 months and older, adults, and older adults. 
There will be no insurance or billing changes, and clinic hours will also remain the same, according to the release. 
Notable quote 
Dan Miller, president and CEO of Methodist Healthcare, said Texas MedClinic has been an important part of the San Antonio community. 
"By bringing these locations into the Methodist Healthcare family, we're creating a more connected healthcare experience while ensuring patients have access to the care they need, close to home," Miller said in the release. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 1.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Amira Van Leeuwen: 9.6%Community Impact: 1.9%Framing Effect19.2%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 11.3%Amira Van Leeuwen: 2.8%Community Impact: 0.3%Status Quo Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.2%Amira Van Leeuwen: 14.4%Community Impact: 2.9%Optimism Bias19.2%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 3.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 4.8%Community Impact: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Amira Van Leeuwen: 5.9%Community Impact: 0.7%Halo Effect11.9%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%Amira Van Leeuwen: 3.0%Community Impact: 1.0%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 1.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 4.8%Community Impact: 3.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.2%Amira Van Leeuwen: 4.8%Community Impact: 1.1%Unattributed Quote19.2%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.6%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.1%Community Impact: 0.5%Biased Writer Voice0.6%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amira Van Leeuwen: 0.0%Community Impact: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Amira Van Leeuwen: 9.6%Community Impact: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.2%

177 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker31%attributed speech122writer words
Selected voice

Dan Miller

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words100% of attributed speech17% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Unattributed Quote+61.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dan Miller: 61.8%61.8%Attempt to Sell a Product +61.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Dan Miller: 61.8%61.8%Biased Writer Voice-0.8 ptsWriter: 0.8%Dan Miller: 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.