Mental Health 9%

7/21/2026, 6:21:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 25.4% saturation with 16 hits. Analysis detected 64 faulty-reasoning hits from 63 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.4% and a BS Rank of 9% (20,056 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.60% of the article peer group.

The Mental Health Project is a Seattle Times initiative focused on covering mental and behavioral health. 
The project illuminates a growing mental health crisis in the Seattle region, Washington state and beyond. 
It explores the many types of mental illness people experience, spotlights promising treatments and research, and examines actions by government agencies, nonprofits and health providers to address the problem. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%The Seattle Times: 1.8%Availability Heuristic25.4%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%The Seattle Times: 6.8%Framing Effect25.4%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 9.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.4%The Seattle Times: 14.2%Negativity Bias25.4%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 3.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 4.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 3.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.4%The Seattle Times: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice25.4%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Seattle Times: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

63 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.