Futurism88%

Freak Tornado Sucks Man Out of 12-Floor Apartment 74%

By Joe Wilkins85%

7/7/2026, 7:49:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55% saturation with 138 hits. Analysis detected 782 faulty-reasoning hits from 251 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.9% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,511 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.10% of the article peer group.

When most of us hear about freak tornadoes, we assume they're ripping through trailer parks in Oklahoma  not high-rises in central China. 
Yet that's exactly what happened late Monday night in China's Hubei province, when extremely powerful storms tore through Huanggang city, sucking a man straight out of his 12th-story apartment. 
Miraculously, the 30-year-old man survived, CNN reports, and is currently in an intensive care unit. 
The gales were so strong that they reportedly ripped his cabinets out of the walls and his couch off the floor, while semi trucks across Huanggang were flung as far as 100 feet, CNN notes. 
At least 11 people have died in the violent squall, while over 331 people are injured. 
The storm further damaged over 4,800 homes across Hubei. 
According to Reuters, the tornado in question reached wind speeds up to 93 miles per hour, equivalent to hurricane-force winds on the extended Beaufort wind force scale. 
While certain regions in China do receive tornadoes, studies have found that the amount of severe tornadic activity has substantially declined over the past few decades. 
Accordingly, tornadoes like this are extremely rare in Hubei, with the latest twister touching down back in May of 2021, per CNN. 
The storm that produced the tornado comes as a result of supertyphoon Maysak, a massive tropical cyclone which made landfall last Friday, forcing tens of thousands to evacuate amidst deadly floods. 
More on tornadoes: Illinois Is Getting Battered by Freak Tornadoes 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.1%Joe Wilkins: 6.4%Futurism: 5.7%Confirmation Bias19.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Joe Wilkins: 6.6%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic21.1%This article: 9.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.7%Futurism: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Joe Wilkins: 13.1%Futurism: 11.4%Framing Effect11.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.4%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.1%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.7%Futurism: 4.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 55.0%Joe Wilkins: 25.8%Futurism: 22.3%Negativity Bias55.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.4%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.2%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 9.2%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.4%Futurism: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.8%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 39.4%Joe Wilkins: 5.9%Futurism: 7.0%Appeal to Authority39.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.5%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.1%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Joe Wilkins: 13.1%Futurism: 10.4%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon4.0%This article: 18.7%Joe Wilkins: 11.2%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion18.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.4%Joe Wilkins: 3.1%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 23.1%Joe Wilkins: 4.5%Futurism: 4.5%Anecdotal23.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 2.4%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.5%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote6.0%This article: 3.2%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 47.8%Joe Wilkins: 27.0%Futurism: 20.6%Biased Writer Voice47.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.8%Futurism: 2.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.5%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

251 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech152writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 15 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageReuters • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCNN • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
72 attributed words73% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice+23.4 ptsWriter: 46.1%CNN: 69.4%69.4%Unattributed Quote+20.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNN: 20.8%20.8%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.6 ptsWriter: 6.6%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%CNN: 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.