Dodgers L.A. Times Newspaper Book86%

5/1/2025, 10:38:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 65.6% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 213 faulty-reasoning hits from 90 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.8% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,180 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.50% of the article peer group.

Capture the history and greatest moments of the LA Dodgers through Los Angeles Times newspaper articles. 
Coverage begins in 1940 and includes highlights from the Dodgers' 2024 Championship victory. 
This book makes a wonderful gift and is perfect for the Dodgers fan in your life. 
Personalize the cover with the recipient’s name and include a custom message on the first page for a truly special gift. 
HOLIDAY DELIVERY: Order by 12/10 to receive before 12/25. 
Hardcover 
170 pages 
Personalized cover 
11". x 13.9" 
Please allow 7-10 business days for shipping 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 65.6%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect65.6%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 41.1%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect41.1%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 17.8%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias17.8%This article: 10.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion10.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 41.1%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion41.1%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 17.8%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon17.8%This article: 14.4%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question14.4%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 14.4%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.4%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

90 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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