Submit a letter to the editor 6%

1/3/2020, 3:08:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Optimism Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 48% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 133 faulty-reasoning hits from 125 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,639 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

Please use the form below to submit a letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. 
You can also submit your letter in an email to letters@latimes.com. 
Fill in your full name, mailing address, city of residence, phone number and e-mail address. 
Submissions that do not include this information cannot be published. 
We generally do not publish more than one letter from a single person within any 60-day period. 
Letters become the property of The Times and may be republished in any format. 
They typically run 150 words or less and may be edited. 
You will be contacted if your letter is a candidate for publication. 
For technical questions or comments about the website, please contact customer service. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 13.6%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma8.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 48.0%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination48.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.8%

125 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech111writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe Times • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Times

0%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Indoctrination-54.1 ptsWriter: 54.1%The Times: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%The Times: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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