Next City63%

Stories tagged ‘Public Space’ 14%

7/31/2026, 6:11:13 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, False Dilemma, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17% saturation with 28 hits. Analysis detected 218 faulty-reasoning hits from 165 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.1% and a BS Rank of 14% (24,214 of 28,026 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.40% of the article peer group.

The Three Pillars of Civil Resistance: Lessons From the Twin Cities 
Designing Cities for Grief and Remembrance 
Urban Seating Isn’t Designed for My Body. 
It’s Time To Change That. 
An Early Literacy Initiative Brings Reading to North Philly Playgrounds 
Helsinki Built A Library That Brings A Whole City Together 
Public Spaces and Technology 
Living With the Virus Means Designing Innovative Public Spaces of the Future 
Richmond Muralist Wants People to ‘Find Themselves’ in Her Work 
Will Monuments Honoring People of Color Replace Old Statues of Confederate Generals? 
‘Who’s Benefiting?’ 
As Chinatown Gentrifies, Rail Park Begins Equitable Development Plan 
Armed With More Resources, American Cities Seek to Create an Equitable Post-Pandemic Future 
The Future of Monumentality: A Next City Ebook 
Place Driving Equity: Investing in Public Space for Shared Prosperity 
While We’re Considering Removing Highways, Let’s Not Overlook Pavement 
Why One NYC Mayoral Candidate Wants New York to Look More Like Barcelona 
Community-Responsive Public Spaces Were More Resilient During COVID, Report Finds 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%Next City: 2.2%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Next City: 2.6%Availability Heuristic12.1%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: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Next City: 12.9%Framing Effect10.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.5%Next City: 1.0%Status Quo Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%Next City: 4.4%Optimism Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.0%Next City: 5.7%Negativity Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 1.5%Halo Effect6.1%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: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 1.2%Appeal to Authority6.1%This article: 12.7%Next City: 1.7%False Dilemma12.7%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning6.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%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: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.2%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question1.2%This article: 5.5%Next City: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.1%Next City: 1.1%Anecdotal6.1%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: 7.3%Next City: 0.9%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.2%Next City: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice4.2%This article: 9.1%Next City: 5.1%Indoctrination9.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 11.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 2.8%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.