STLPR0%

St. Louis wants your thoughts on how to spend the Rams settlement money 3%

By Rebecca Thiele0%

5/18/2026, 7:53:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Loss Aversion, Pessimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 16.2% saturation with 41 hits. Analysis detected 97 faulty-reasoning hits from 253 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.4% and a BS Rank of 3% (20,587 of 21,182 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.20% of the article peer group.

The City of St. 
Louis wants residents’ thoughts on how to spend the money from the Rams settlement. 
The city is considering a bill to spend $230 million from the settlement, with $110 million going to north city, to support residents whose homes were damaged in last year’s devastating tornado. 
The other $120 million would be split between projects to revitalize downtown ($55 million) and to improve the city’s infrastructure ($65 million), including at least $30 million to repair St. 
Louis’ aging drinking water pipes and other water systems. 
The city is gathering residents' opinions on the plan in a survey it opened up last week. 
St. 
Louisans will have until the end of the day on May 27 to fill it out. 
The survey results will be shared with elected officials. 
At a rally led by Action St. 
Louis last week, activists and north city residents demanded the city allocate $40 million more to tornado recovery. 
Some members of the St. 
Louis Board of Aldermen want to devote more of the Rams settlement money to rebuilding north city than others. 
But many of them say that not even the full $230 million would be enough to make residents whole. 
The storm caused an estimated $1.6 billion in damage. 
The city will also hold its first public hearing on the Rams settlement bill at 11 a.m. 
May 26 at City Hall during a Housing, Urban Development and Zoning Committee meeting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 3.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Rebecca Thiele: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Rebecca Thiele: 8.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 7.5%Rebecca Thiele: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion7.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 5.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Rebecca Thiele: 2.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 3.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 2.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 4.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.5%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 7.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.9%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 4.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 3.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 3.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 0.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Thiele: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

253 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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