Kershaw's Retirement: A Goodbye Bliss 9/21/25 Sports Page Print93%

9/20/2025, 5:25:07 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Loss Aversion, and In-Group Bias, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 70% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 170 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 87.1% and a BS Rank of 93% (1,731 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 92.10% of the article peer group.

Order a framed or unframed page print of the L.A. Times 9/21/25 Sports front page. 
HOLIDAY DELIVERY: Order framed prints by 12/3 and unframed prints by 12/12 to receive before 12/25. 
DETAILS: 
Unframed: 13" x 22" 
Framed: 15" x 24" 
High quality matte paper 
SHIPPING TIME: 
Please allow 14 business days for processing for framed prints and 7 business days for unframed prints. 
All sales are final. 
Note: This item is not available for shipment outside of the United States. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 70.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias70.0%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: 65.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect65.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 16.3%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias16.3%This article: 25.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion25.0%This article: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.3%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias16.3%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: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias5.0%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: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%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: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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%

80 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.