STLPR0%

May 16 tornado in St. Louis reached 1.8 miles wide, NWS report says 36%

By Rob Edwards0%

5/15/2026, 7:10:49 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Framing Effect, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 18.9% saturation with 43 hits. Analysis detected 280 faulty-reasoning hits from 228 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.8% and a BS Rank of 36% (14,189 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.80% of the article peer group.

The deadly EF3 tornado that tore through St. 
Louis last May was even larger and more complex than first believed. 
The National Weather Service released a newly updated assessment of the May 16, 2025, storm that killed five people on Friday. 
The weather service identified a second tornado that hit the Metro East that day and expanded the width of the main tornado to a record-setting 1.8 miles. 
According to the report, the EF3 tornado that hit St. 
Louis County, St. 
Louis and western Madison County dissipated just outside Granite City. 
A second tornado, an EF1 with maximum sustained winds of 107 mph, tracked through parts of western Madison County and lifted just east of SIU Edwardsville. 
Weather service officials revised the width of the EF3 tornado to 3,168 yards, or 1.8 miles. 
They said that’s the widest tornado in the St. 
Louis region since reliable records began in 1950. 
The second tornado had a width of 0.3 miles. 
Authorities say they used a combination of ground survey data and aerial imagery to make adjustments to their initial damage assessment. 
The agency said reviews like this are important to ensure the historical record is correct. 
The weather service posted detailed information about its revised damage assessment as part of a toolkit that is now online. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.9%Rob Edwards: 2.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias18.9%This article: 3.5%Rob Edwards: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias3.5%This article: 3.5%Rob Edwards: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic3.5%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.3%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Rob Edwards: 7.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.8%Rob Edwards: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 3.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Rob Edwards: 4.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Rob Edwards: 1.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.5%Rob Edwards: 5.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority17.5%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 2.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.6%Rob Edwards: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question6.6%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.6%Rob Edwards: 3.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote13.6%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.3%Rob Edwards: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice5.3%This article: 6.6%Rob Edwards: 3.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination6.6%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rob Edwards: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Rob Edwards: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.8%

228 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker18%attributed speech187writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageNational Weather Service • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageNational Weather Service • 20 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +48.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%National Weather Service: 48.8%48.8%Unattributed Quote-16.6 ptsWriter: 16.6%National Weather Service: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%National Weather Service: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%National Weather Service: 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.