Rev. Julia E. Smith Obituary 14%

By Chicago Tribune5%

7/21/2026, 5:05:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Halo Effect, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 68.8% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 205 faulty-reasoning hits from 77 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.7% and a BS Rank of 14% (18,169 of 21,109 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.10% of the article peer group.

Mama, we were blessed to have you for 79 years  Years wherein you worked so hard in God’s vineyard. 
Today marks 35 years of rest from your labors. 
For us, it has been years of separation. 
We sorely miss you. 
The pain has eased, but it never goes away. 
We look forward to seeing you in the Rapture. 
We love you. 
Your Loving Children, 
Nadine Williams & Dr. 
Vernon G. 
Smith 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Chicago Tribune: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.4%Chicago Tribune: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.5%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.6%Chicago Tribune: 6.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 10.4%Chicago Tribune: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.1%Loss Aversion10.4%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.7%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Chicago Tribune: 2.6%Optimism Bias11.7%This article: 16.9%Chicago Tribune: 0.5%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Pessimism Bias16.9%This article: 27.3%Chicago Tribune: 1.6%Chicago Tribune: 6.4%Negativity Bias27.3%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.6%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 29.9%Chicago Tribune: 18.3%Chicago Tribune: 8.4%Halo Effect29.9%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Chicago Tribune: 3.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.7%Chicago Tribune: 3.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.0%Chicago Tribune: 7.2%Chicago Tribune: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion26.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.7%Chicago Tribune: 0.4%Chicago Tribune: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 26.0%Chicago Tribune: 1.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.0%Anecdotal26.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Chicago Tribune: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.3%Chicago Tribune: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 68.8%Chicago Tribune: 10.6%Chicago Tribune: 7.7%Biased Writer Voice68.8%This article: 37.7%Chicago Tribune: 1.2%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Indoctrination37.7%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Chicago Tribune: 2.6%Chicago Tribune: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

77 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers6.5%attributed speech72writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageNadine Williams • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageSmith • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nadine Williams

0%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words80% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-73.6 ptsWriter: 73.6%Nadine Williams: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-40.3 ptsWriter: 40.3%Nadine Williams: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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