A True Story of Love, Obsession, and Shipwreck92%

2/17/2026, 7:41:57 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 36.5% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 418 faulty-reasoning hits from 189 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.3% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,795 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.50% of the article peer group.

Lots of people dream about leaving it all behind, but Maurice and Maralyn Bailey really did it. 
They bought a boat and set sail in June of 1972. 
They’d been living on the ocean for a year when it happened. 
A breaching whale ran into their boat  and destroyed the vessel. 
Now adrift on a raft in the vast Pacific, the Baileys had little to live on. 
And if sharks and starvation didn’t make for enough suffering, there was also the matter of dealing with each other, and the cracks in their marriage that started splitting wider as they fought to survive. 
The writer Sophie Elmhirst tells the story in her new book, and she’s joining us to talk about what happens when a marriage is pushed to the furthest extremes possible. 
GUEST 
Sophie Elmhirst is a journalist who writes regularly for The Guardian Long Read and The Economist. 
Her work has also appeared in The New York Times Magazine, The New Yorker, and Harper’s Bazaar, among others. 
Her book first book is A Marriage at Sea: A True Story of Love, Obsession, and Shipwreck. 
Originally broadcast 8/28/25 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 9.0%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic9.0%This article: 6.3%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.5%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect36.5%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: 8.5%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 24.9%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias24.9%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: 34.4%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect34.4%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.4%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority34.4%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: 15.9%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization15.9%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 36.0%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion36.0%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: 9.0%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal9.0%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: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%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%

189 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.