BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Framing Effect, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 27.2% saturation with 202 hits. Analysis detected 1,481 faulty-reasoning hits from 744 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.7% and a BS Rank of 35% (13,787 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.00% of the article peer group.

Buckle up, because election season is here. 
Utah’s Democratic and Republican parties will hold their state nominating conventions on April 25. 
This year, there’s a twist. 
Things will play out differently for one reason: redistricting. 
After the courts selected a redrawn congressional map late last year, the landscape is different. 
There are new boundaries, so current federal representatives had to choose where to run. 
Rep. 
Burgess Owens announced in March that he would retire. 
But the biggest change is a new 1st Congressional District centered on north Salt Lake County that is favorable for Democrats. 
The Democrats 
The last time a Democrat represented Utah in Congress was Ben McAdams in the old 4th district from 2019 to 2021. 
This year, he is running to head back to Washington, D.C., in the newly redrawn first. 
At Saturday’s Democratic convention at Jordan High School in Sandy, all eyes will be on McAdams and the five other candidates looking to become the party’s nominee. 
The challengers to McAdams include state Sen. 
Nate Blouin, Salt Lake City Councilor Eva Lopez Chavez, Liban Mohamed, Michael Farrell and Luis Villareal. 
As of publication, only McAdams and Blouin have enough verified signatures to guarantee spots on the June primary ballot. 
Signatures will continue to be verified until the day before the convention, but if nothing changes, that means the rest of the field will be looking to win over enough delegates in order to continue. 
The Democratic race has been characterized as a contest between the party’s younger, more progressive wing  largely represented by Blouin  and the establishment side led by McAdams. 
The race was further complicated last week after Washington, D.C.-based Punchbowl News published a story detailing a series of online posts made by Blouin over a decade ago that mocked members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and repeatedly used vulgar language, appearing to joke about sexual battery and child sexual exploitation. 
Blouin apologized for the posts and faced condemnation and calls from fellow Democrats to drop out of the race. 
Despite the backlash, he told The Salt Lake Tribune he doesn’t plan to drop out. 
Which candidates will make it to the primary by way of signatures is still up in the air, as is whether Blouin’s online past is enough to funnel delegate support toward another candidate. 
The Republicans 
GOP delegates will convene at Utah Valley University to pick their candidates. 
With the new 1st Congressional District largely out of play for Republicans this cycle, the bulk of the attention is on matchups in the other three districts, which all heavily favor Republicans. 
In the 2nd Congressional District, which encompasses much of northern Utah, Rep. 
Blake Moore faces state lawmaker Karianne Lisonbee. 
Moore has served in Congress since 2021 and currently is the House Republican Caucus Vice-Chair, making him a member of senior GOP leadership in D.C. 
Moore largely occupies the “establishment” Republican lane and has angered some party loyalists over his past support for Utah’s anti-gerrymandering law, Prop 4, which was a factor in creating the now left-leaning district in Salt Lake County. 
Moore has since distanced himself from that effort. 
Moore’s challenger, Lisonbee, is a well-known conservative in the Legislature who was the House sponsor of many abortion-related laws, including the near-total ban that's currently held up by the courts. 
The 3rd Congressional District covers most of eastern and southern Utah, where Rep. 
Celeste Maloy is looking to remain in Congress for another term. 
She faces a strong challenge from former state lawmaker Phil Lyman. 
GOP delegates previously supported Lyman in his 2024 run for governor  where he ultimately lost to Gov. 
Spencer Cox in the primary  and an unsuccessful but close bid for party leadership last year. 
Maloy is no stranger to hard-fought victories, however, having scraped out wins in 2023 and 2024 against intraparty opposition. 
Maloy and Moore have both qualified for the primary through signature gathering, so it’s win or go home for challengers Lyman and Lisonbee. 
In the 4th Congressional District, Rep. 
Mike Kennedy will also seek to remain in Congress. 
He faces a slew of Republican challengers, but none have the name recognition he does. 
No candidates in that race have submitted signatures to appear on the primary ballot. 
Convention winners and the candidates who qualified for the ballot through signature gathering will face off in the June 23 primary. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.9%Sean Higgins: 2.5%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias6.9%This article: 1.2%Sean Higgins: 0.9%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias1.2%This article: 8.1%Sean Higgins: 2.8%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 10.8%Sean Higgins: 1.7%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic10.8%This article: 2.0%Sean Higgins: 0.4%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias2.0%This article: 4.4%Sean Higgins: 2.1%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 13.2%Sean Higgins: 5.2%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.9%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.8%Sean Higgins: 1.1%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Sean Higgins: 4.1%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 1.9%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Sean Higgins: 5.3%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 4.2%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.7%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Sean Higgins: 2.7%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.8%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Sean Higgins: 2.1%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect9.4%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Sean Higgins: 1.2%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.5%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.5%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.6%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.4%Sean Higgins: 4.1%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority7.4%This article: 4.3%Sean Higgins: 2.2%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma4.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.7%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.3%Sean Higgins: 4.7%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization2.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.9%Sean Higgins: 5.5%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.8%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.1%Sean Higgins: 2.5%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.9%Sean Higgins: 2.4%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal9.9%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.2%Sean Higgins: 1.8%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.2%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.6%Sean Higgins: 0.9%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote8.6%This article: 7.4%Sean Higgins: 0.8%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection7.4%This article: 8.3%Sean Higgins: 1.4%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice8.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 2.4%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.7%Sean Higgins: 1.3%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.7%This article: 13.3%Sean Higgins: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Sean Higgins: 0.6%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

744 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers8.6%attributed speech680writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageBurgess Owens • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coveragePunchbowl News • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Punchbowl News

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words86% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Punchbowl News: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Punchbowl News: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.6 ptsWriter: 14.6%Punchbowl News: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Punchbowl News: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Punchbowl News: 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.