Next City⁠63%

San Francisco ⁠94%

8/1/2026, 4:13:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and In-Group Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 85.2% saturation with 46 hits. Analysis detected 224 faulty-reasoning hits from 54 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠94% (1,853 of 28,109 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 93.40% of the article peer group.

Next City covers solutions emerging in San Francisco to advance equity in the city. 
Check out our archives to see how San Francisco is working to develop economic justice, housing equity, transportation access, sustainable infrastructure and renewable energy, and racial justice through grassroots movements and urban policy. 
Activate to edit the task name 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Next City: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%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: 61.1%Next City: 12.9%Framing Effect61.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 5.7%Negativity Bias0.0%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: 61.1%Next City: 0.9%In-Group Bias61.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%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: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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: 0.0%Next City: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%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: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 85.2%Next City: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice85.2%This article: 61.1%Next City: 5.1%Indoctrination61.1%This article: 61.1%Next City: 11.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias61.1%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 85.2%Next City: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…85.2%

54 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker61%attributed speech21writer words
Selected voice

Next City

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Next City: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Next City: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+38.1 ptsWriter: 61.9%Next City: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +38.1 ptsWriter: 61.9%Next City: 100.0%100.0%

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.