BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 36.9% saturation with 83 hits. Analysis detected 416 faulty-reasoning hits from 225 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.2% and a BS Rank of 82% (4,091 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.30% of the article peer group.

LDS President Dallin H. Oaks (left) with newly appointed apostle Clark G. Gilbert 
LDS President Dallin H. Oaks has chosen a new apostle. 
His name is Clark G. Gilbert, and his appointment is raising controversy among the faithful. 
Scholar Benjamin Park joins us to explain why. 
Clark has a reputation as an orthodox, religious conservative. 
As the Church’s commissioner of education, he oversees Brigham Young University. 
There, faculty have raised concerns about a “loyalty oath” that affirms Church doctrine and enforces strict behavioral standards, especially concerning women and LGBTQ+ issues. 
Before that, Gilbert spent time at the Church-owned Deseret News, where he laid off dozens of employees. 
Now, he’s a lifetime member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. 
That puts him in a position of significant power within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 
We’ll talk about what it means. 
GUESTS  
Benjamin E. Park | He’s an associate professor of history at Sam Houston State University, author of the book “American Zion: A New History of Mormonism,” and president of the Mormon History Association. 
You can check out his YouTube page here. 
Peggy Fletcher Stack | She’s a senior religion reporter for The Salt Lake Tribune. 
Her article, “Dark Days: New Rules Have BYU Professors Running Scared,” was published on January 6th, 2025. 
Airdate: Feb. 19, 2026, and Feb. 21, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.8%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias25.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.9%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect36.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.4%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect7.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem7.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.4%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority24.4%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 32.9%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion32.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.6%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy7.6%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

225 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.