BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Self-Serving Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,164 faulty-reasoning hits from 963 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.2% and a BS Rank of 19% (16,592 of 20,383 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.40% of the article peer group.

Missouri voters could see the return of the presidential primary. 
Members of the House voted 116-23 on Thursday to pass the legislation, four years after state lawmakers voted to remove it. 
The legislation now goes to the Senate, with five weeks left of the 2026 legislative session. 
Also on Thursday, the House passed legislation creating cross-reporting requirements for child and animal abuse as well as a bill to restrict SNAP and Medicaid eligibility to U.S. citizens. 
Presidential primary 
The legislation would reinstate the primary, which would take place on the first Tuesday in March of every presidential election year. 
Rep. 
Brad Banderman, R-St. 
Clair, said that is the earliest in the year that both the Democratic and Republican parties would allow. 
"This is as early as we can have it, and I believe this will also help with some of the overlap in our April municipal election that happens every four years when we used to have the presidential preference primary," said Banderman, the bill's sponsor. 
The last two presidential primaries were held in Missouri on March 15 in 2016 and on March 10 in 2020. 
There was no election authority-run presidential primary in 2024. 
Instead, state Republicans conducted a caucus for the 2024 election, while Democrats ran their own primary. 
The bill also contains language that would bind the results of the primary to delegates. 
The political parties would have to allocate delegates in proportion to the statewide and congressional district results. 
The legislation received bipartisan support, with Rep. 
Eric Woods, D-Kansas City, saying bringing back the primary makes Missouri more involved in the presidential election process in 2028 and beyond. 
According to the bill's fiscal note, reinstating the primary could cost the state as much as $9 million in general revenue for fiscal 2028. 
The legislation is HB 2387 
Cross-reporting requirements for child and animal abuse 
Cases of animal abuse and neglect in Missouri would have to be reported by child abuse investigators and others, under proposed legislation. 
The House passed the bill on Thursday by a vote of 125-12. 
It now goes to the Senate. 
The measure requires agencies involved in child abuse investigations to also be trained and report instances of animal abuse. 
It also requires animal control officers to be mandated reporters in cases of abuse and neglect of vulnerable people, including children and the elderly. 
The bill requires animal control officers to receive training on how to detect signs of abuse and neglect in children, the elderly and other vulnerable people. 
Similarly, people who provide support and advocacy care for children, including Children's Division employees, would receive training on how to recognize abuse in animals. 
Rep. 
Holly Jones, R-Eureka, the bill's sponsor, said there is a correlation between animal abuse and violence against humans. 
She said inflicting harm on animals can mentally harm people too. 
"We know that companion animal abuse, dogs, cats, those kinds of things, abusing those animals that are so attached to a child or an elderly person creates a lot of psychological and mental abuse for that person," Jones said. 
The legislation also adds starvation to the definition of animal abuse. 
The legislation is HB 2292 
Changes to Missouri SNAP and Medicaid 
The chamber also approved legislation Thursday that would bar noncitizens from receiving Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program benefits. 
"This legislation is about accountability, clarity and responsible stewardship of taxpayers resources," said Rep. 
Jamie Gragg, R-Ozark, the bill's sponsor. 
Certain immigrants in the country with legal status, including refugees and lawful permanent residents, would still be allowed to apply for aid. 
The legislation requires people who qualify for SNAP to submit proof of citizenship or legal status and repeals an existing law that prohibits the state from asking about legal status. 
It mirrors provisions included in the federal One Big Beautiful Bill Act that passed last summer. 
The legislation was opposed by Democrats who said it places extra burdens on Missourians despite little evidence of fraud in the state's SNAP program. 
"You are now lending to the problem by increasing bureaucratic red tape, by making it harder for your constituents to access the services that they are paying into as taxpayers," said Rep. 
Keri Ingle, D-Lee's Summit. 
An amendment to the legislation sponsored by Rep. 
Brandon Phelps, R-Warrensburg, also restricts Missouri Medicaid to U.S. citizens and certain immigrants. 
Federal law currently prohibits people in the country without legal status from enrolling in Medicaid. 
"It's about preventing fraud," Phelps said. 
"It's about preserving taxpayer dollars." 
As with SNAP, Democrats said there is no evidence of fraud by immigrants against the state's Medicaid program. 
The legislation would not restrict anyone from accessing emergency services. 
Another provision of the bill requires the director of the Missouri Department of Social Services to request a federal waiver to change the state SNAP program by excluding certain foods, such as candy and soda, and prioritizing healthier foods, such as fruits and vegetables. 
It was opposed by Democrats who said that, while honorable, it places more restrictions on Missourians in poverty  especially those living in food deserts. 
"Find a different target, find another enemy. 
Leave those folks alone," said Rep. 
Ian Mackey, D-Richmond Heights. 
"When they sell you that birthday cake, say thank you and let them have theirs, too." 
Gragg said: "We're telling people they can buy flour, they can buy eggs, they can buy milk, they can buy the chocolate powder that goes in it. 
They can make cake." 
The federal government already approved a waiver in December after Gov. 
Mike Kehoe submitted a request in October. 
Changes to the SNAP program are predicted for this fall. 
The legislation passed 95-44 on a party-line vote. 
HB 2481 now goes to the Senate. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Confirmation Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.3%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias1.0%This article: 13.0%Sarah Kellogg: 7.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.5%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.5%This article: 1.1%Sarah Kellogg: 1.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Status Quo Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.7%Columbia Missourian: 4.5%Optimism Bias1.0%This article: 1.9%Sarah Kellogg: 2.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 10.3%Sarah Kellogg: 4.2%Columbia Missourian: 5.4%Negativity Bias10.3%This article: 9.3%Sarah Kellogg: 2.1%Columbia Missourian: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.7%This article: 2.3%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.3%This article: 0.7%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 2.4%Halo Effect0.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.4%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Straw Man0.4%This article: 6.2%Sarah Kellogg: 1.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Appeal to Authority6.2%This article: 0.7%Sarah Kellogg: 1.5%Columbia Missourian: 1.0%False Dilemma0.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.0%Sarah Kellogg: 3.5%Columbia Missourian: 3.6%Hasty Generalization7.0%This article: 1.7%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Red Herring1.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.8%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.1%Sarah Kellogg: 9.4%Columbia Missourian: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion15.1%This article: 4.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.6%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 6.3%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.3%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Sarah Kellogg: 2.6%Columbia Missourian: 2.6%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.6%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.1%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.2%Columbia Missourian: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.5%Columbia Missourian: 0.8%Unattributed Quote1.9%This article: 1.5%Sarah Kellogg: 1.7%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 4.9%Sarah Kellogg: 0.9%Columbia Missourian: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 4.0%Sarah Kellogg: 1.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.3%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.4%Columbia Missourian: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.6%Columbia Missourian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Kellogg: 0.0%Columbia Missourian: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

963 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers26%attributed speech709writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Banderman • 3 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Banderman • 18 words • 100.0% coverageBrad Banderman • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageEric Woods • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Jones • 18 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Jones • 11 words • 0.0% coverageHolly Jones • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJamie Gragg • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageKeri Ingle • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBrandon Phelps • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBrandon Phelps • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBrandon Phelps • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageIan Mackey • 7 words • 0.0% coverageIan Mackey • 6 words • 0.0% coverageIan Mackey • 4 words • 0.0% coverageIan Mackey • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Gragg • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Gragg • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Holly Jones

100%flagged-word coverage
68 attributed words27% of attributed speech44% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination+57.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Holly Jones: 57.4%57.4%Biased Writer Voice-6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%Holly Jones: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Holly Jones: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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