BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, False Dilemma, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 12% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,392 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,210 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.8% and a BS Rank of 15% (18,786 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.80% of the article peer group.

shiyali // Getty Images 
Here’s what you’ll learn when you read this story: 
In 1968, El Fausto disappeared near the Canary Islands, only to be found and lost yet again. 
The strange behavior of the crew when the ship was first discovered resulted in the tragic deaths of all four men. 
No single theory adequately explains the bizarre behavior that led to the disappearance of El Fausto . 
On July 20, 1968, a family crew—Ramón and Eliberto Hernandez, and their cousin Miguel Acosta—planned a routine trip from El Hierro to La Palma, intending to deliver explosives earmarked for land clearing. 
They also took on a mechanic , Julio García Pino, who was desperately searching for a boat heading to La Palma after receiving news that his one-month-old daughter needed urgent medical attention. 
The crew set sail on El Fausto , a 46-foot-long fishing vessel that frequently ferried goods and people between locations in the Canary Islands. 
The roughly 60-mile trip should have landed El Fausto in La Palma the following morning at 10 a.m., but it failed to show up. 
The delay didn’t immediately cause alarm—there was a light mist overnight that would have reduced visibility, but nothing concerning for an experienced sailor —and the ship’s owner, Rafael Acosta, figured some sort of mechanical problem was at fault. 
An official search wasn’t launched until the next day, July 22, but when nothing was found for three days, hope began to wane. 
Then, four days later, the incredible news came in. 
The Duchess —a British ship traveling from South America to the Netherlands—spotted El Fausto roughly 108 miles from La Palma, alerted by a flashlight from the crew. 
Out of food (the crew had taken only a small amount of fruit with them from El Hierro) and fuel, El Fausto was adrift in the Atlantic, but the crew (according to those aboard the Duchess ) was reported well. 
Then, things took a turn for the bizarre. 
The crew of the Duchess offered to tow El Fausto home, even though there was no apparent mechanical issue with the fishing boat. 
But El Fausto ’s crew—all of whom appeared irritated, but not in any mental distress—refused. 
Hamstrung by the refusal, the British sailors gave the four men food , water, cigarettes, and enough fuel for them to make the 18-hour trip back home, and left El Fausto on its own. 
Though a welcoming party waited back in El Hierro, those 18 hours came and went, and El Fausto never showed. 
A second, Spanish-led search kicked off, this time with planes scouring the coastal regions of the Canary Islands, Spain , and Portugal. 
But they found nothing. 
The ship was officially declared lost on Aug. 
7. 
Two months later, and still there was no sign of El Fausto . 
On October 9, the Italian ship Anna Di Maio stumbled across a ship adrift in the Atlantic while sailing to Venezuela, 1,800 miles from the Canary Islands. 
The vessel was clearly El Fausto , with the ship’s name and TE-2-12-68 identifier both easily visible. 
The Italian crew boarded the fishing vessel and found no obvious signs of violence or damage—but no signs of life, either. 
When the searchers dropped below deck to the engine room, however, they found the somewhat-mummified remains of one naked man. 
“In the engine room was the body of a young man in an advanced state of decomposition,” the Anna Di Maio captain reported, according to Explorers Web . 
The discovery was originally reported via telegram , which reported that the man was discovered near a radio, that the corpse was naked, and that no logbooks were discovered. 
There was, however, one document found: a notebook, located near the body, with 28 pages ripped out and writing on the final page. 
That writing included instructions for the man’s wife on how to cash in on his life insurance , and concluded with: “Don’t ever tell Julin all that has happened to me. 
You know that God wanted this fate for me. 
Love you.” 
Julin was the name of mechanic Julio García Pino’s son, and Pino’s wife eventually confirmed her husband’s handwriting. 
The Anna Di Maio attempted to bring both the boat and the body back to land, but shortly after beginning the tow, El Fausto sank, taking García Pino’s body and any additional evidence on board with it. 
The Peculiar, Unexplained Refusal 
Experts speculate that those torn 28 pages included a full account of what El Fausto ’s crew endured. 
The final lines implied that García Pino’s wife could know all that really did happen to him if she had read what preceded. 
Why those pages were destroyed remains a mystery , but an even more pressing mystery also remains unresolved: Why did the crew of El Fausto act so strangely when the Duchess found them and offered to tow them to safety? 
The inexplicable nature of the men’s actions has prompted a wide range of theories , including that they were planning to start a new life in Venezuela, or that they were caught up in an illicit business. 
But by all accounts, El Fausto’ s crew were all upstanding, family-oriented men with every reason to be happy in life. 
García Pino certainly had a strong desire to return home. 
Another theory suggested that the terrorist organization Movement for the Self-Determination and Independence of the Canary Archipelago had enlisted El Fausto ’s crew to orchestrate violence in the islands. 
The boat was carrying explosives , after all. 
But the violence kicked off by the organization didn’t start for years after El Fausto ’s disappearance, and there was no indication the men had any connections to the group. 
One theory that gained traction was that the boat was being held hostage when the Duchess found it, and that’s why the crew refused the help. 
Was a pirate on board, threatening harm if they accepted the tow? 
The most basic of theories, though, may be the only one with legs. 
Some claim that in their hunger and thirst, the crew had become somewhat delirious, and they refused help from the British sailors due to their addled states, believing they could make it back on their own. 
But if that is the case, why were three of the bodies not on board when the ship was eventually found? 
What did those missing 28 pages contain? 
And who tore them out? 
Tim Newcomb is a journalist based in the Pacific Northwest. 
He covers stadiums, sneakers, gear, infrastructure, and more for a variety of publications, including Popular Mechanics. 
His favorite interviews have included sit-downs with Roger Federer in Switzerland, Kobe Bryant in Los Angeles, and Tinker Hatfield in Portland. 
Is the ‘Betz Mystery Sphere’ Really Alien Tech? 
Stuck Stem Cells Culprit for Gray Hair 
Chernobyl Stewards May Pass Mutations to Children 
The Truth Behind Japan’s “Atlantis” 
Earth’s Hidden Eighth Continent Is No Longer Lost 
We May Have Botched Our Global Warming Timeline 
An Ancient Bridge Lost to History Has Reemerged 
A New Formula for Pi Is Here 
The Universe May Hold Many Forms of Consciousness 
New Medicine May Help New Teeth Grow 
Why Did a 4,500-Year-Old City Need Secret Tunnels? 
‘Rebooting’ Your Eye Could Cure Vision Loss 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.9%Tim Newcomb: 5.7%Popular Mechanics: 4.4%Confirmation Bias4.9%This article: 2.6%Tim Newcomb: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Anchoring Bias2.6%This article: 11.2%Tim Newcomb: 3.1%Popular Mechanics: 3.1%Availability Heuristic11.2%This article: 1.7%Tim Newcomb: 2.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic1.7%This article: 1.7%Tim Newcomb: 1.5%Popular Mechanics: 1.8%Hindsight Bias1.7%This article: 2.5%Tim Newcomb: 4.2%Popular Mechanics: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 5.6%Tim Newcomb: 3.5%Popular Mechanics: 3.6%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.1%Tim Newcomb: 0.7%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 3.1%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect3.1%This article: 3.1%Tim Newcomb: 2.6%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 1.1%Tim Newcomb: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Pessimism Bias1.1%This article: 12.0%Tim Newcomb: 4.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.3%Negativity Bias12.0%This article: 0.8%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.8%This article: 3.1%Tim Newcomb: 1.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.1%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Tim Newcomb: 1.5%Popular Mechanics: 1.9%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Tim Newcomb: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 1.2%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.0%Tim Newcomb: 5.7%Popular Mechanics: 5.5%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 7.4%Tim Newcomb: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 1.6%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Tim Newcomb: 4.1%Popular Mechanics: 4.2%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.3%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 5.9%Tim Newcomb: 1.7%Popular Mechanics: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion5.9%This article: 1.9%Tim Newcomb: 0.6%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 4.5%Tim Newcomb: 3.1%Popular Mechanics: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.7%Tim Newcomb: 1.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.6%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 3.9%Tim Newcomb: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 0.5%Appeal to Nature3.9%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.5%Popular Mechanics: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.4%Tim Newcomb: 1.6%Popular Mechanics: 2.6%Anecdotal1.4%This article: 1.7%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%No True Scotsman1.7%This article: 1.2%Tim Newcomb: 2.5%Popular Mechanics: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.2%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.1%Tim Newcomb: 0.1%Popular Mechanics: 0.2%Middle Ground1.1%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Tim Newcomb: 1.2%Popular Mechanics: 1.4%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.7%Tim Newcomb: 0.9%Popular Mechanics: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.7%This article: 4.6%Tim Newcomb: 5.2%Popular Mechanics: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice4.6%This article: 0.7%Tim Newcomb: 0.3%Popular Mechanics: 1.1%Indoctrination0.7%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tim Newcomb: 0.0%Popular Mechanics: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Tim Newcomb: 0.2%Popular Mechanics: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.2%

1210 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers9.3%attributed speech1,097writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRafael Acosta • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageAnna Di Maio captain • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTim Newcomb • 10 words • 0.0% coverageTim Newcomb • 16 words • 0.0% coverageTim Newcomb • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rafael Acosta

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words34% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%Rafael Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.3 ptsWriter: 1.3%Rafael Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.8 ptsWriter: 0.8%Rafael Acosta: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%Rafael Acosta: 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.