‘Section 415’ podcast: Analyzing the Valkyries’ surprise championship push ⁠82%

By Kerry Crowley⁠81%

7/14/2026, 10:21:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Optimism Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 39.1% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 301 faulty-reasoning hits from 115 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (3,935 of 21,169 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.40% of the article peer group.

The Golden State Valkyries have won seven consecutive games and are in the midst of the best stretch in the franchise’s brief history. 
Natalie Nakase’s team plays dominant defense, has one of the league’s deepest rotations, and has a range of playmakers who have helped close out recent wins. 
Sounds like a championship-caliber team, right? 
Despite struggles against Minnesota and Las Vegas this season, Golden State’s recent play suggests that it should be considered a title contender. 
On the “Section 415” podcast, reporter Jane Kenny joins host Kerry Crowley to analyze the Valkyries’ chances of shocking the league and winning a title in their second season. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.6%Kerry Crowley: 5.2%The San Francisco Standard: 2.8%Confirmation Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Kerry Crowley: 6.7%The San Francisco Standard: 3.4%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 3.5%The San Francisco Standard: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 1.5%The San Francisco Standard: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 38.3%Kerry Crowley: 10.9%The San Francisco Standard: 6.6%Framing Effect38.3%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 25.2%Kerry Crowley: 10.5%The San Francisco Standard: 2.6%Optimism Bias25.2%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.1%Kerry Crowley: 13.9%The San Francisco Standard: 7.4%Negativity Bias19.1%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.6%Kerry Crowley: 10.1%The San Francisco Standard: 4.0%Halo Effect22.6%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 39.1%Kerry Crowley: 13.8%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Recency Bias39.1%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 6.3%The San Francisco Standard: 3.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 19.1%Kerry Crowley: 3.1%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%False Dilemma19.1%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.0%Kerry Crowley: 8.3%The San Francisco Standard: 5.3%Hasty Generalization20.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Kerry Crowley: 1.8%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.4%The San Francisco Standard: 4.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 2.4%The San Francisco Standard: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 1.8%The San Francisco Standard: 3.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.2%Kerry Crowley: 15.7%The San Francisco Standard: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Crowley: 0.0%The San Francisco Standard: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 25.2%Kerry Crowley: 2.0%The San Francisco Standard: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…25.2%

115 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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