America Is Not Prepared for a War on Our Water ⁠68%

By Seth M. Siegel⁠84%

8/3/2026, 11:33:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 464 faulty-reasoning hits from 231 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (9,870 of 30,190 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.

It sounds like the stuff of a summer thriller. 
Using cyber tools, one of our adversaries, maybe Iran, maybe North Korea, or possibly, a criminal enterprise, takes over the operations of a drinking water utility. 
The amount of purifying chemicals applied by automation is significantly increased or completely stopped. 
Before the change is caught, a dozen people in the area get sick. 
It is barely a news story outside of the community. 
Negligence, not sabotage, is assumed. 
Two days later, in another part of the U.S., the same happens at three drinking water utilities. 
This time, several children are hospitalized. 
A coincidence, perhaps, but the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the FBI send investigators to the affected communities to quietly ask questions. 
Again, it is a local story with no one connecting the dots. 
But when it happens again two days later at five additional drinking water utilities, including in a midsize city, it becomes national news. 
A panic ensues. 
There is a run on bottled water in supermarkets, gas stations, corner stores. 
There are reports of vending machines pried open for the water bottles. 
Bottled water supplies run out nationally. 
The president addresses the nation, assuring everyone that there is no reason to worry, that nearly all water is safe to drink. 
Few people accept these explanations. 
Riots break out. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.2%Seth M. Siegel: 2.9%The FP: 5.0%Confirmation Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%Seth M. Siegel: 13.4%The FP: 4.0%Availability Heuristic23.8%This article: 6.1%Seth M. Siegel: 1.5%The FP: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 3.1%The FP: 8.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 1.4%The FP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.5%Seth M. Siegel: 4.8%The FP: 1.4%Optimism Bias9.5%This article: 4.3%Seth M. Siegel: 1.1%The FP: 1.5%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 18.2%Seth M. Siegel: 9.8%The FP: 9.3%Negativity Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Seth M. Siegel: 2.4%The FP: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.2%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Seth M. Siegel: 5.6%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Seth M. Siegel: 1.8%The FP: 1.9%Recency Bias7.4%This article: 4.3%Seth M. Siegel: 1.1%The FP: 0.9%Primacy Effect4.3%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.0%Seth M. Siegel: 9.5%The FP: 3.0%Appeal to Authority19.0%This article: 11.3%Seth M. Siegel: 5.6%The FP: 2.4%False Dilemma11.3%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 5.0%The FP: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Seth M. Siegel: 5.3%The FP: 7.8%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.6%Seth M. Siegel: 2.8%The FP: 0.9%Bandwagon5.6%This article: 2.6%Seth M. Siegel: 3.9%The FP: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion2.6%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.6%Seth M. Siegel: 4.7%The FP: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.6%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.5%Seth M. Siegel: 2.4%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof9.5%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.5%Seth M. Siegel: 4.1%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal16.5%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.2%Seth M. Siegel: 0.5%The FP: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.2%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.5%Seth M. Siegel: 2.4%The FP: 2.2%Unattributed Quote9.5%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.9%Seth M. Siegel: 6.1%The FP: 13.6%Biased Writer Voice3.9%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 2.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Seth M. Siegel: 0.0%The FP: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

231 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.5%attributed speech209writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Environmental Protection Agency: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Environmental Protection Agency: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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