The U.S. Is Losing Venezuela ⁠84%

By Elliott Abrams⁠96%

7/13/2026, 11:39:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Begging the Question, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.5% saturation with 79 hits. Analysis detected 748 faulty-reasoning hits from 229 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,275 of 20,497 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.00% of the article peer group.

On January 3, Venezuelans cheered when the United States removed their longtime dictator Nicolás Maduro, and seemed to open the door for a return to democracy. 
But since then, U.S. policy has been to keep that door shut. 
Support for Maduro’s replacement and former vice president, Delcy Rodríguez, has been firm despite her regime’s poor response to the devastating earthquakes that struck on June 24. 
And now the United States risks losing the goodwill it earned by removing Maduro six months ago. 
As The New York Times reported last week, Venezuelans are “turning their anger toward the Trump administration, which has. . . stood by the government’s management of the disaster.” 
This is not only a betrayal of America’s long-standing commitment to restoring democracy in Venezuela after 27 years of socialist authoritarianism. 
It’s also against America’s own interests and counterproductive to the Trump administration’s main priority: extracting Venezuelan oil and getting it to consumers. 
I served as the special representative for Venezuela in Trump’s first term. 
The administration imposed sanctions on Venezuela and rejected the 2018 presidential election stolen by Nicolás Maduro. 
And we backed the president of the National Assembly, Juan Guaidó, as interim president, while demanding an end to the Maduro dictatorship. 
Then came January’s daring raid on Maduro’s home and what Venezuelans hoped was a new era of freedom and democracy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.0%Elliott Abrams: 16.3%The FP: 6.1%Confirmation Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Elliott Abrams: 3.2%The FP: 4.1%Availability Heuristic12.7%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 1.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 1.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Elliott Abrams: 1.3%The FP: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 10.5%Elliott Abrams: 12.2%The FP: 10.1%Framing Effect10.5%This article: 7.4%Elliott Abrams: 5.6%The FP: 0.6%Loss Aversion7.4%This article: 5.2%Elliott Abrams: 1.3%The FP: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.1%Elliott Abrams: 10.0%The FP: 1.1%Optimism Bias20.1%This article: 9.6%Elliott Abrams: 5.6%The FP: 1.4%Pessimism Bias9.6%This article: 34.5%Elliott Abrams: 12.2%The FP: 10.9%Negativity Bias34.5%This article: 9.6%Elliott Abrams: 7.1%The FP: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 11.8%Elliott Abrams: 2.9%The FP: 1.3%Fundamental Attribution Error11.8%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Elliott Abrams: 4.8%The FP: 1.7%In-Group Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Elliott Abrams: 1.3%The FP: 2.0%Halo Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.2%Elliott Abrams: 4.0%The FP: 2.1%Recency Bias16.2%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 2.2%The FP: 1.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 2.4%The FP: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.9%Elliott Abrams: 7.6%The FP: 3.1%Appeal to Authority17.9%This article: 9.6%Elliott Abrams: 2.4%The FP: 2.5%False Dilemma9.6%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 6.7%The FP: 8.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.6%Elliott Abrams: 2.4%The FP: 1.3%Bandwagon9.6%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 14.3%The FP: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 18.8%Elliott Abrams: 8.7%The FP: 1.6%Begging the Question18.8%This article: 16.2%Elliott Abrams: 4.0%The FP: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.2%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.4%Elliott Abrams: 2.8%The FP: 3.2%Anecdotal11.4%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.2%Elliott Abrams: 3.1%The FP: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.2%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 11.8%Elliott Abrams: 2.9%The FP: 0.2%Special Pleading11.8%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 12.7%Elliott Abrams: 9.5%The FP: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection12.7%This article: 25.3%Elliott Abrams: 31.0%The FP: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice25.3%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 2.3%The FP: 2.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 2.3%The FP: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Elliott Abrams: 4.1%The FP: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias16.6%This article: 0.0%Elliott Abrams: 0.0%The FP: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

229 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech200writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The New York Times: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.0 ptsWriter: 29.0%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -19.0 ptsWriter: 19.0%The New York Times: 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.