BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.8% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 279 faulty-reasoning hits from 165 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.5% and a BS Rank of 40% (16,987 of 28,112 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.40% of the article peer group.

U.S. 
Cities Need More Diverse Teachers. 
Philly Has an Answer. 
NYC’s Big Bet to Train the Black and Brown Climate Professionals of the Future 
Philadelphia Students Learn the Business of Cheesemaking 
New York Can Lead in Reimagining Public Safety. 
Here’s How. 
Philadelphia Nonprofit Trains Parents to Be Reading Stewards 
Choose to Change Connects Chicago Teens to Therapy, Mentors 
Movement Grows to Require Ethnic Studies in Public High Schools, Despite California Veto 
School Nurses, On Front Lines of Pandemic, Are Helping Students Stay Well, Even Virtually 
Why Some Argue Tax-Exempt Institutions Should be Paying Property Taxes 
Is Unschooling the Way to Decolonize Education? 
Charlotte Educators Are Fighting for Racial Equity in North Carolina Classrooms 
Lawyers Volunteer in Schools, Reduce Eviction Rate for Students 
Baltimore Has an Ongoing Debate About Arming School Police 
Senate Bill Proposes Smaller Class Sizes for High-Poverty School Districts 
In Madison, Public School Students Built a City This Year 
Boston Vocational High School Program Opens Multiple Doors at Once 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%Next City: 2.0%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 3.9%Availability Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Next City: 14.2%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.9%Next City: 0.9%Status Quo Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.8%Next City: 4.7%Optimism Bias18.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Next City: 5.7%Negativity Bias21.8%This article: 5.5%Next City: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Next City: 0.9%In-Group Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Next City: 1.4%Halo Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 1.6%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.9%Next City: 5.6%Hasty Generalization10.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.4%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question2.4%This article: 13.3%Next City: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.3%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.1%Next City: 0.2%Burden of Proof9.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.5%Next City: 1.1%Anecdotal14.5%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice6.1%This article: 6.7%Next City: 4.7%Indoctrination6.7%This article: 0.0%Next City: 12.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 2.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

165 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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