BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 11 hits. Analysis detected 11 faulty-reasoning hits from 53 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 1% (21,864 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.90% of the article peer group.

Anita Chabria is a California columnist for the Los Angeles Times, based in Sacramento. 
Before joining The Times, she worked for the Sacramento Bee as a member of its statewide investigative team and previously covered criminal justice and City Hall. 
Follow her on Bluesky at anitachabria.bsky.social and on X at @anitachabria. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anita Chabria: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Anita Chabria: 10.4%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…20.8%

53 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker79%attributed speech11writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Anita Chabria • 2 words • 0.0% coverageAnita Chabria • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAnita Chabria • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Anita Chabria

0%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Anita Chabria: 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.