Rebuilding after the Spokane Complex will take time, as past fire recovery shows 42%

By Ted McGregor58%

8/6/2026, 1:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 34.7% saturation with 83 hits. Analysis detected 292 faulty-reasoning hits from 239 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.6% and a BS Rank of 42% (17,696 of 30,497 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.00% of the article peer group.

This very week in 1889, on Aug. 4, the downtown business district of Spokane Falls burned to the ground. 
Seattle, Cheney and Ellensburg all had devastating fires that summer, as well. 
The Big Burn of 1910 blew through Montana, Idaho and Washington in August of that year, burning Wallace, Idaho, in the process. 
Going (a lot) further back, London in 1666 burned over three days in September, destroying 80% of the city. 
Although it can seem like a distant platitude when we’re talking about things that happened a century ago, we humans do rebuild after catastrophes. 
Spokane Falls changed its name to Spokane, and with help from neighboring cities, by the end of 1890 some 500 new buildings were under construction. 
The Davenport Hotel was even launched after the fire as a business that survives to this day. 
After the Big Burn, the federal government overhauled the way fires would be fought in the West, and of course London’s St. 
Paul’s Cathedral (along with 52 other parish churches) was famously replaced by Sir Christopher Wren after that devastating fire. 
Don’t get the wrong idea: Rebuilding is difficult. 
They are still wrangling over the rebuilding of Altadena and Pacific Palisades in California, 18 months after their fires. 
And it took Wren until 1710 to open his new St. 
Paul’s Cathedral, still considered a masterpiece of human achievement. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.0%Ted McGregor: 3.6%inlander.com: 1.6%Confirmation Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.2%inlander.com: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 34.7%Ted McGregor: 8.4%inlander.com: 1.7%Availability Heuristic34.7%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.6%inlander.com: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 1.2%inlander.com: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.4%inlander.com: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 3.3%inlander.com: 1.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 1.2%inlander.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Ted McGregor: 4.2%inlander.com: 2.3%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 8.8%Ted McGregor: 2.3%inlander.com: 0.9%Pessimism Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 7.6%inlander.com: 2.9%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.5%inlander.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.6%inlander.com: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 2.1%inlander.com: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Ted McGregor: 0.9%inlander.com: 1.4%Halo Effect10.9%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Ted McGregor: 1.4%inlander.com: 0.6%Recency Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.1%inlander.com: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.2%inlander.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%Ted McGregor: 1.9%inlander.com: 1.6%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.7%inlander.com: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Ted McGregor: 5.3%inlander.com: 2.4%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 3.8%inlander.com: 1.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.5%inlander.com: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.2%Ted McGregor: 1.8%inlander.com: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.9%Ted McGregor: 1.7%inlander.com: 1.8%Anecdotal7.9%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.2%inlander.com: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.8%Ted McGregor: 2.8%inlander.com: 2.8%Biased Writer Voice8.8%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 4.7%inlander.com: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ted McGregor: 0.0%inlander.com: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

239 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.