BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Appeal to Emotion, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.8% saturation with 225 hits. Analysis detected 1,068 faulty-reasoning hits from 461 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.9% and a BS Rank of 40% (13,264 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.60% of the article peer group.

In a desperate effort to defend a key stronghold from advancing British troops, the Continental Army dug in at Philadelphia’s Fort Mifflin in September 1777. 
What followed was among the most brutal sieges of the Revolutionary War. 
The patriots’ meager defenses couldn’t withstand the constant British barrage, and one patriot after another was “cut in two.” 
A survivor, Joseph Plumb Martin, later described the ordeal: “In the cold month of November,” he fought “without provisions, without clothing,” without even “a scrap of either shoes or stockings.” 
As the battle neared its end, Martin surveyed lines of dead comrades, observing later that “if ever destruction was complete, it was here.” 
He was just 16 years old. 
Many defeats and relentless hardships followed over the long years of the revolution. 
Often, soldiers survived on whatever they could find: bark from trees, dog and horse flesh, strips of leather boiled down to bitter soup. 
Martin recalled regularly marching “24 or 48 hours . . . night and day without rest or sleep.” 
At times, he fell asleep on his feet, only to be jolted awake by the man next to him. 
Soldiers slept and fought without adequate clothing, blankets, or, like Martin, shoes. 
“You might have tracked the army . . . by the blood of their feet,” George Washington said about the long winter march to Valley Forge in Pennsylvania. 
Those who escaped death from starvation, exposure, or enemy fire often succumbed to disease. 
And for all this, the small wages the men were promised often went unpaid or arrived in currency so devalued as to be nearly worthless. 
Soldiers were not alone in their sacrifice. 
Across the colonies, ordinary people contributed in countless ways. 
Women organized boycotts of British goods, joined resistance groups like the Daughters of Liberty, and tended to soldiers as nurses and cooks. 
Farmers left their fields to join local militias and fight alongside the Continental Army. 
Children kept households and managed businesses in their parents’ absence. 
Many, like Martin, volunteered to serve. 
Emily Geiger was 18 years old when she rode through enemy lines to deliver an important message to a patriot general. 
Richard Lord Jones was 10 when he became an army fifer; after his discharge three years later, he walked 150 miles home. 
And when the British caught the 21-year-old spy Nathan Hale, he met death with resolve: “I only regret that I have but one life to give for my country.” 
This year marks the 250th anniversary of our nation’s independence. 
We are celebrating with fireworks, barbecues, and parades. 
But we might also pause to reflect on the courage and sacrifice of the founding generation and ask: What moved so many ordinary people to do so many extraordinary things? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Neil Gorsuch: 1.6%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 1.3%Neil Gorsuch: 0.8%The FP: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.4%Neil Gorsuch: 5.4%The FP: 9.5%Framing Effect13.4%This article: 5.4%Neil Gorsuch: 2.7%The FP: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.4%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.5%The FP: 1.3%Optimism Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 48.8%Neil Gorsuch: 19.7%The FP: 10.8%Negativity Bias48.8%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Neil Gorsuch: 0.7%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error2.6%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.5%The FP: 1.9%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Neil Gorsuch: 1.6%The FP: 1.1%Primacy Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.1%Neil Gorsuch: 5.3%The FP: 8.9%Hasty Generalization17.1%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.7%Neil Gorsuch: 0.4%The FP: 1.2%Bandwagon1.7%This article: 23.0%Neil Gorsuch: 18.1%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion23.0%This article: 6.5%Neil Gorsuch: 1.6%The FP: 1.5%Begging the Question6.5%This article: 3.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.8%The FP: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.7%Neil Gorsuch: 6.2%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal24.7%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.5%Neil Gorsuch: 3.6%The FP: 2.5%Unattributed Quote14.5%This article: 23.0%Neil Gorsuch: 7.3%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection23.0%This article: 21.3%Neil Gorsuch: 7.3%The FP: 15.0%Biased Writer Voice21.3%This article: 8.2%Neil Gorsuch: 5.3%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination8.2%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Neil Gorsuch: 0.0%The FP: 4.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

461 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers43%attributed speech265writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Neil Gorsuch • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Plumb Martin • 30 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Plumb Martin • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Plumb Martin • 18 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Plumb Martin • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageGeorge Washington • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageEmily Geiger • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Lord Jones • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNathan Hale • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nathan Hale

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words15% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+92.8 ptsWriter: 7.2%Nathan Hale: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-37.0 ptsWriter: 37.0%Nathan Hale: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Nathan Hale: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Nathan Hale: 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.