State-by-state view of gas prices as Iran war pushes oil markets higher 68%

By Amanda Macias0%

4/2/2026, 10:00:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 114 hits. Analysis detected 616 faulty-reasoning hits from 334 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.4% and a BS Rank of 68% (6,880 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.50% of the article peer group.

Gas prices are climbing fast nationwide, adding pressure to already strained household budgets as conflict with Iran drives up global oil costs. 
Prices are rising across nearly every region, with some states already well above the national average. 
As of April 1, the national average for regular gasoline stood at $4.06 per gallon, according to AAA  up $1.08 from a month earlier. 
On the West Coast, drivers are seeing the highest costs, with prices reaching $5.89 per gallon in California and $5.35 in Washington. 
On the East Coast, gas prices are approaching or exceeding $4 in several areas, including $4.19 in Washington, D.C., and $3.98 in New York. 
In the Midwest, Illinois stands out at $4.25 per gallon, while much of the region remains in the mid-$3 range. 
Southern states remain cheaper overall, though prices are rising. 
Texas averages about $3.77 and South Carolina at $3.90, while Florida is higher at $4.21. 
Meanwhile, diesel is outpacing gasoline due to its link to freight and industry, meaning increases can ripple through supply chains and raise costs across the economy. 
Diesel currently stands at $5.49 a gallon, up $1.73 from a month ago, according to AAA, surpassing $5 for the first time since December 2022 as the war in Iran continues to disrupt global energy supplies. 
"Gas prices could indeed fall, but are highly unlikely to go back to their pre-war levels for months, in part due to the amount of time needed for global inventories to build back," wrote Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. 
De Haan said seasonal factors are also working against drivers. 
Demand typically rises heading into the summer months, while refinery maintenance and the switch to summer gasoline blends can further push prices higher. 
With the midterm elections approaching, the rise in energy and housing costs could pose a challenge for President Donald Trump, who has pledged to make life more affordable for American families. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 3.5%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 3.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Amanda Macias: 3.3%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 11.7%Amanda Macias: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Amanda Macias: 14.4%FoxBusiness: 13.0%Framing Effect20.1%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Amanda Macias: 2.6%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 12.9%Amanda Macias: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias12.9%This article: 22.2%Amanda Macias: 8.2%FoxBusiness: 7.8%Negativity Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.9%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.1%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.8%FoxBusiness: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.8%Amanda Macias: 2.0%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 2.8%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.1%Amanda Macias: 4.5%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority34.1%This article: 9.3%Amanda Macias: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma9.3%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.8%Amanda Macias: 5.4%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization4.8%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 7.1%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.1%Amanda Macias: 5.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.1%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.2%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.2%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.5%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.8%Amanda Macias: 4.0%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice16.8%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Amanda Macias: 5.7%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.9%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

334 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech220writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAAA • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAAA • 36 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick De Haan • 43 words • 0.0% coveragePatrick De Haan • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

AAA

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words54% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice+26.9 ptsWriter: 14.1%AAA: 41.0%41.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%AAA: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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