Next City65%

Stories tagged ‘Small Business’ 31%

8/1/2026, 6:12:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Halo Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 19.9% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 302 faulty-reasoning hits from 166 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.2% and a BS Rank of 31% (19,572 of 28,112 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.60% of the article peer group.

How This Cultural District in St. 
Paul Is Fighting Displacement 
How Black Innovation Is Rewriting Boston’s Economic Story 
The Biggest Community Development Financing Program You’ve Never Heard Of 
New Data Proves Small ‘Maker Businesses’ Can Revitalize Downtowns 
The Weekly Wrap: Non-Citizen Entrepreneurs Are Now Ineligible for SBA-Backed Loans 
A Commercial Down Payment Program Is Saving Miami’s Small Businesses From Displacement 
These Grants Are a Lifeline for Altadena’s Fire-Impacted Small Businesses 
Building a National Movement To Protect Small Businesses From Displacement 
The Conference Where Small Business Advocates Find Their People 
An Atlanta Makerspace Revitalizes Lives, Small Businesses  and a Neighborhood 
This Baltimore Food Incubator Is a Local Economic Engine 
Making the Case for L.A.’s Small Businesses To Invest in Climate Resiliency 
Where CDFIs Make Big Change 
Trump Admin Is Undermining a Small Business Loan Program For Underserved Communities 
The Weekly Wrap: It’s Been Nearly Five Years Since George Floyd’s Death. 
Has Anything Changed? 
A Historic House Museum Advances Small Artisans and Makers 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.2%Next City: 2.0%Confirmation Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Next City: 3.9%Availability Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.8%Next City: 0.1%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Next City: 14.2%Framing Effect7.2%This article: 13.3%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion13.3%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.3%Next City: 4.7%Optimism Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.9%Next City: 5.7%Negativity Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Next City: 1.4%Halo Effect17.5%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.9%Next City: 1.2%Recency Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Next City: 0.1%Ad Hominem7.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Next City: 1.1%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 5.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%Next City: 0.2%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 6.0%Next City: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.2%Next City: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.6%Next City: 1.2%Composition/Division6.6%This article: 5.4%Next City: 1.1%Anecdotal5.4%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%Next City: 0.1%Middle Ground1.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 19.9%Next City: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice19.9%This article: 1.8%Next City: 4.7%Indoctrination1.8%This article: 7.2%Next City: 12.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 2.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

166 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.2%attributed speech154writer words
Selected voice

Trump Admin

100%flagged-word coverage
12 attributed words100% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump Admin: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+86.4 ptsWriter: 13.6%Trump Admin: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Trump Admin: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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