Check out the first images of Quest shipwreck 6%

By Jennifer Ouellette10%

7/10/2026, 12:59:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Representativeness Heuristic, Recency Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 38% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 368 faulty-reasoning hits from 279 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.9% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,769 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.90% of the article peer group.

Back in 2024, we reported on the discovery of the Quest shipwreck, the polar exploration vessel that served Arctic explorer Sir Ernest Shackleton on his last voyage. 
Shackleton died before reaching their destination, and the ship sank in 1962. 
The Royal Canadian Geographic Society (RCGS) has now released the first images of the wreck more than 60 years after it sank, published in Canadian Geographic magazine. 
Shackleton, of course, is most famous for his ill-fated voyage on the Endurance, which became trapped in sea ice in 1914 and sank. 
Shackleton and his crew defied the odds and survived. 
(The Endurance shipwreck was finally found in 2022.) 
By the time Shackleton returned to England, the country was embroiled in World War I, and many of his men enlisted. 
Shackleton was considered too old for active service. 
He was also deeply in debt from the Endurance expedition, earning a living on the lecture circuit. 
But he still dreamed of making another expedition to the Arctic Ocean north of Alaska to explore the Beaufort Sea. 
He got funding from an old school chum, John Quillier Rowett . 
Shackleton purchased a wooden Norwegian whaler, Foca I , which his wife Emily renamed Quest . 
When the Canadian government withdrew its support, the mission shifted back to the Antarctic, and the Quest received an extensive retrofit. 
The improvements included a new deckhouse, a heated crow’s nest, a wireless set, and an odograph for tracing and charting the route automatically, as well as a Lucas deep-sea sounding machine, a large and pricey collection of cameras and photographic equipment, and even a small airplane. 
Read full article 
Comments 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 2.2%Ars Technica: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.5%Ars Technica: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 2.3%Ars Technica: 2.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 16.5%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.0%Ars Technica: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic16.5%This article: 2.9%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.4%Ars Technica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.3%Ars Technica: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 2.5%Ars Technica: 3.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.4%Ars Technica: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.4%Jennifer Ouellette: 2.6%Ars Technica: 4.2%Optimism Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.1%Ars Technica: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Jennifer Ouellette: 8.2%Ars Technica: 6.2%Negativity Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.3%Ars Technica: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.6%Ars Technica: 2.0%Halo Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.8%Ars Technica: 1.0%Recency Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.7%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.3%Ars Technica: 4.1%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.8%Ars Technica: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.0%Ars Technica: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 5.0%Ars Technica: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.8%Ars Technica: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.2%Jennifer Ouellette: 3.2%Ars Technica: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.8%Ars Technica: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.5%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.7%Ars Technica: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.5%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.9%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.9%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.9%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.9%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 1.1%Ars Technica: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.7%Ars Technica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 38.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 5.5%Ars Technica: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice38.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.5%Ars Technica: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.6%Ars Technica: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Jennifer Ouellette: 0.6%Ars Technica: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.9%

279 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech224writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageRoyal Canadian Geographic Society • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Quillier Rowett • 12 words • 0.0% coverageEmily • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words49% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-47.3 ptsWriter: 47.3%Royal Canadian Geographic Society: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%Royal Canadian Geographic Society: 0.0%0.0%

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.