Here’s what we know about Sen. Mitch McConnell’s health ⁠60%

By Ben Binday⁠0%

7/7/2026, 12:04:52 AM

Topics: Politics

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 54.5% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 252 faulty-reasoning hits from 101 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (8,338 of 20,540 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.40% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Mitch McConnell has spent three weeks in the hospital, and his office still will not say what sent the 84-year-old Kentucky Republican there, his latest condition or when he might return. 
McConnell, who has served in the Senate since 1985 and led Senate Republicans from 2007 until 2025, has not cast a vote since June 11. 
His absence comes as Republicans are navigating a narrow Senate majority. 
It has helped stall spending bills in the Appropriations Committee and added uncertainty around a senator already in the final months of his career. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 4.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Ben Binday: 1.8%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Ben Binday: 39.4%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%Ben Binday: 3.9%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias23.8%This article: 54.5%Ben Binday: 54.5%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias54.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 6.8%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 6.8%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 6.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 13.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 48.5%Ben Binday: 11.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)48.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 23.8%Ben Binday: 3.9%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof23.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.8%Ben Binday: 2.9%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.7%Ben Binday: 25.3%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote30.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 13.5%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.7%Ben Binday: 40.3%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice33.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 15.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Binday: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

101 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.