BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 180 faulty-reasoning hits from 180 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25.7% and a BS Rank of 9% (19,188 of 20,947 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.60% of the article peer group.

Native American Tribes Came Together to Secure Their Rights to Colorado River Water. 
Four States Are Stalling the Deal. 
by Mark Olalde, ProPublica, and Alex Hager, KJZZ News-Phoenix; photography by Sharon Chischilly for ProPublica 
June 29, 2026, 5:00 am EDT 
Western States Opposed Tribes’ Access to the Colorado River 70 Years Ago. 
History Is Repeating Itself. 
by Mark Olalde, ProPublica, and Anna V. 
Smith 
October 17, 2023, 5:00 am EDT 
In Arizona Water Ruling, the Hopi Tribe Sees Limits on Its Future 
by Umar Farooq 
July 7, 2023, 5:00 am EDT 
The Colorado River Flooded Chemehuevi Land. 
Decades Later, the Tribe Still Struggles to Take Its Share of Water. 
by Mark Olalde and Umar Farooq, ProPublica, and Anna V. 
Smith 
July 5, 2023, 5:00 am EDT 
Supreme Court Keeps Navajo Nation Waiting for Water 
by Anna V. 
Smith, and Umar Farooq and Mark Olalde, ProPublica 
June 26, 2023, 2:00 pm EDT 
How Arizona Stands Between Tribes and Their Water 
by Mark Olalde and Umar Farooq, ProPublica, and Anna V. 
Smith 
June 14, 2023, 6:00 am EDT 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.2%ProPublica: 2.9%Confirmation Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 6.7%ProPublica: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic6.7%This article: 2.2%ProPublica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%ProPublica: 6.8%Framing Effect16.7%This article: 6.7%ProPublica: 0.5%Loss Aversion6.7%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%ProPublica: 0.9%Pessimism Bias6.7%This article: 16.7%ProPublica: 8.2%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%ProPublica: 0.6%In-Group Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.3%ProPublica: 0.9%False Dilemma3.3%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 2.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.2%ProPublica: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.2%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.0%ProPublica: 1.3%Unattributed Quote20.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.4%ProPublica: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%ProPublica: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

180 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.