Sign up for The Wild ⁠96%

By Jaclyn Cosgrove⁠48%

11/13/2025, 7:46:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Indoctrination, and Overconfidence Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 92.2% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 235 faulty-reasoning hits from 77 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 93.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠96% (904 of 21,164 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 95.70% of the article peer group.

Every week, we’ll take you along on the soft-dirt trails around L.A. as well as the cement-topped spots where nature incredibly thrives. 
We’ll help you find the best places to hike, bike and run, as well as the perfect silent spots for meditation and yoga. 
And you’ll find plenty of tips on how to get started on your new outdoors life and what gear you’ll need. 
Manage your L.A. 
Times newsletter subscriptions 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 3.4%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 29.9%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias29.9%This article: 28.6%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect28.6%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 8.7%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 5.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 5.5%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 28.6%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion28.6%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 8.1%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 92.2%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 4.3%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice92.2%This article: 33.8%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination33.8%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 3.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 1.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 92.2%Jaclyn Cosgrove: 4.7%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…92.2%

77 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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