Sunday Puzzle: Two words, one anagram ⁠0%

By Will Shortz⁠0%

5/24/2026, 12:28:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Loss Aversion, and Indoctrination, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 36.4% saturation with 91 hits. Analysis detected 258 faulty-reasoning hits from 250 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (21,878 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

On-air challenge 
I'm going to give you some made up two-word phrases in which each word has five letters. 
Rearrange the letters in one of these words to complete a familiar two-word phrase. 
Which word to anagram is for you to discover. 
Ex. 
APPLE DICER --> Apple cider 
1. 
BAKER PEDAL 
2. 
BLANK SERVE 
3. 
LEGAL FIBER 
4. 
MAID'S TOUCH 
5. 
REGAL PRINT 
6. 
HUMAN BINGE 
7. 
PEACH TRICK 
8. 
DREAM GUARD 
9. 
DUTCH TATER 
10. 
PEARL DRIVE 
11. 
CLEAN TALES 
12. 
SHORE SENSE 
Last week's challenge 
Last week's challenge comes from Joseph Young, of St. 
Cloud, Minn. 
Name a famous actor of the past (7,7). 
Remove three consecutive letters from his last name, and the remaining letters in order will be the well-known lead character from a long-running series of films. 
What actor and character are these? 
Answer: Charlie Chaplin --> Charlie Chan 
Winner 
Thomas Hirschman of Durham, North Carolina. 
This week's challenge 
This week's challenge comes from Jim Francis, of Kirkland, Wash. 
Think of a famous female singer (8,4). 
The first syllable of her first name, the second syllable of her first name backward, and last name forward again are all verbs associated with human desire. 
Who is this singer? 
If you know the answer to the challenge, submit it here by Thursday, May 28 at 3 p.m. 
ET. 
Listeners whose answers are selected win a chance to play the on-air puzzle. 
Important: include a phone number where we can reach you. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.4%Will Shortz: 0.3%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.3%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Will Shortz: 0.8%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 3.2%Will Shortz: 0.4%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic3.2%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.2%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 1.0%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Will Shortz: 1.7%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 7.2%Will Shortz: 0.9%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion7.2%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%Will Shortz: 1.3%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Will Shortz: 1.3%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.0%Will Shortz: 0.8%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 1.0%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Will Shortz: 0.6%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 36.4%Will Shortz: 4.4%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)36.4%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Will Shortz: 0.9%KUOW: 1.0%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 2.0%Will Shortz: 0.2%KUOW: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 6.8%Will Shortz: 0.8%KUOW: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice6.8%This article: 7.2%Will Shortz: 2.2%KUOW: 1.5%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Shortz: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Will Shortz: 0.5%KUOW: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

250 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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