BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Authority, and Burden of Proof, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 50.8% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 488 faulty-reasoning hits from 118 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.5% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,872 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.70% of the article peer group.

Earth is one big spinning mystery in a constant state of change. 
With more than 4.5 billion years of history locked inside a ball of molten rock and iron, our planet is made up of a vast array of geological wonders, carved by the oceans, shaped by the shifting plates beneath our feet and sculpted by weather across the surface. 
Our team of expert science writers and editors are here to reveal our planet’s secrets  from the deepest depths of the ocean, through the coldest places on Earth to the very edge of space  keeping you up to date with the latest discoveries with planet Earth news, articles and features. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 2.3%Live Science: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 44.1%Live Science Staff: 16.4%Live Science: 2.7%Availability Heuristic44.1%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 3.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 40.7%Live Science Staff: 12.7%Live Science: 3.3%Framing Effect40.7%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.2%Live Science Staff: 6.7%Live Science: 3.5%Optimism Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 8.9%Live Science: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Live Science Staff: 1.3%Live Science: 3.3%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 40.7%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 1.3%Halo Effect40.7%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 3.6%Live Science: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 44.1%Live Science Staff: 28.0%Live Science: 4.2%Appeal to Authority44.1%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 5.3%Live Science: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 2.3%Live Science: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 40.7%Live Science Staff: 10.7%Live Science: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion40.7%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 44.1%Live Science Staff: 5.8%Live Science: 0.4%Burden of Proof44.1%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 3.6%Live Science: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 50.8%Live Science Staff: 34.0%Live Science: 3.5%Biased Writer Voice50.8%This article: 44.1%Live Science Staff: 22.2%Live Science: 1.0%Indoctrination44.1%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Live Science Staff: 0.0%Live Science: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 44.1%Live Science Staff: 50.4%Live Science: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…44.1%

118 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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