Forbes⁠46%

NYT Strands Answers Today: Hints & Clues For Sunday, July 19 (Big Talk) ⁠36%

By Erik Kain⁠5%

7/18/2026, 5:51:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 28.8% saturation with 98 hits. Analysis detected 500 faulty-reasoning hits from 340 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠36% (14,007 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.00% of the article peer group.

Looking for help uncovering words in today’s NYT Strands puzzle? 
Look no further! 
Below, you’ll find some extra clues and other help to get you started in your quest. 
Alright lazy Sunday people, let’s solve today’s Strands and get on with being lazy! 
Looking for Saturday’s Strands? 
Find our guide right here. 
How To Play Strands 
Strands is the newest game in the New York Times’ stable of puzzle games. 
It’s a fun twist on classic word search games. 
Every day we’re given a new theme and then tasked with uncovering all the words on the grid that fit that theme, including a spangram that spans two sides of the board. 
One of these words is the spangram which crosses from one side of the grid to another and reveals even more about the day’s theme. 
Spoilers ahead. 
Today’s Strands Hints 
Read on for today’s theme and some hints to help you uncover today’s words. 
Today’s Theme: Big talk 
Hint: These are all BIG words that also mean BIG (aka “gargantuan” and the like). 
The first two letters of each word: 
GI 
BE 
LE 
MA 
CO 
Remember, spoilers ahead! 
What Are Today’s Strands Answers? 
Today’s spangram is: SUPER SIZE IT 
Here’s the full list of words: 
GIANT 
BEHEMOTH 
LEVIATHAN 
MAMMOTH 
COLOSSUS 
Here’s the completed Strands grid: 
Today’s Strands hints and answers 
Credit: New York Times 
Today’s Strands Breakdown 
Other than GIANT, which is fine, each of these words are kind of awesome. 
BEHEMOTH? 
MAMMOTH? 
COLOSSUS? 
LEVIATHAN? 
These are massive words, words that make you think of huge beasts roaming ancient plains. 
And then they go and ruin it with SUPER SIZE IT for the spangram. 
Oh well. 
How’d you do on your Strands today? 
Let me know on Twitter and Facebook. 
Be sure to check out my blog for my daily Wordle guides as well as all my other writing about TV shows, streaming guides, movie reviews, video game coverage and much more. 
Thanks for stopping by! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.2%Erik Kain: 1.1%Forbes: 3.1%Confirmation Bias13.2%This article: 4.4%Erik Kain: 0.9%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias4.4%This article: 5.6%Erik Kain: 1.2%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic5.6%This article: 4.4%Erik Kain: 0.2%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.4%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.2%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 1.2%Forbes: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Erik Kain: 0.7%Forbes: 5.8%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.6%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.3%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Erik Kain: 2.0%Forbes: 3.9%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 0.6%Erik Kain: 0.9%Forbes: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.6%This article: 4.1%Erik Kain: 1.8%Forbes: 5.4%Negativity Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.4%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Erik Kain: 0.4%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Erik Kain: 0.2%Forbes: 3.2%Halo Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Erik Kain: 0.6%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.1%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.3%Erik Kain: 1.0%Forbes: 4.6%Appeal to Authority5.3%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.8%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.3%Forbes: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.4%Erik Kain: 0.3%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning7.4%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.8%Forbes: 5.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.6%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 19.4%Erik Kain: 1.0%Forbes: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion19.4%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.3%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.3%Forbes: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.2%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.1%Forbes: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.1%Erik Kain: 0.8%Forbes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.1%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.1%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.1%Forbes: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 19.4%Erik Kain: 6.2%Forbes: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice19.4%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 2.8%Forbes: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Erik Kain: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 28.8%Erik Kain: 8.9%Forbes: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…28.8%

340 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.2%attributed speech336writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -29.2 ptsWriter: 29.2%New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.6 ptsWriter: 19.6%New York Times: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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