Four takeaways from primaries in Georgia, Alabama and Oklahoma ⁠87%

By Praveena Somasundaram⁠0%

6/17/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Recency Bias, and False Dilemma, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 63.2% saturation with 43 hits. Analysis detected 210 faulty-reasoning hits from 68 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (3,002 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.30% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump had mixed results in Georgia’s primaries, with his preferred gubernatorial candidate Burt Jones losing to billionaire Rick Jackson. 
Meanwhile, his support helped Rep. 
Mike Collins secure the Republican nomination for a key Senate seat. 
Trump’s influence remains strong in some states, but recent losses in Georgia and Iowa could indicate a weakening grip on the GOP. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Praveena Somasundaram: 3.7%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 9.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.3%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 30.9%Praveena Somasundaram: 43.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect30.9%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.4%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.4%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias32.4%This article: 30.9%Praveena Somasundaram: 11.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias30.9%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Praveena Somasundaram: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error16.2%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 5.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 32.4%Praveena Somasundaram: 7.9%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias32.4%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 10.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 32.4%Praveena Somasundaram: 7.5%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma32.4%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.2%Praveena Somasundaram: 15.3%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization16.2%This article: 7.4%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring7.4%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 6.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.2%Praveena Somasundaram: 14.2%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.2%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 4.1%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.6%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Praveena Somasundaram: 2.9%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 5.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 63.2%Praveena Somasundaram: 33.3%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice63.2%This article: 16.2%Praveena Somasundaram: 5.4%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination16.2%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 27.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Praveena Somasundaram: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

68 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech57writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageMike Collins • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Collins

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words100% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mike Collins: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-75.4 ptsWriter: 75.4%Mike Collins: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Mike Collins: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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