Nicole Hensley makes 27 saves as Frost ends Fleet's undefeated streak, 5-281%

By The Associated Press63%

12/20/2025, 2:20:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Anchoring Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 54.5% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 225 faulty-reasoning hits from 143 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.3% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,161 of 21,230 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.40% of the article peer group.

Kendall Coyne Schofield scored her league-leading fifth goal of the season and Nicole Hensley made 27 saves and Minnesota Frost beat the undefeated Boston Fleet 5-2 on Friday night. 
Coyne Schofield found the back of the net, poking in a rebound in the first period. 
Dominique Petrie scored on a tip-in, and the Frost went into the first intermission up 2-0. 
After Fleet goalie Aerin Frankel stopped a breakaway early in the second period, the puck got away from her and Britta Curl-Salemme scored on the rebound. 
Boston swung momentum its way when it scored two goals in 23 seconds in the third from Olivia Mobley and Riley Brengman. 
With just over a minute, the Fleet pulled Frankel, and the Frost put away two empty net goals to win their first home game of the season. 
Frankel made 25 saves on 28 shots. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 25.2%The Associated Press: 1.4%MPR News: 4.4%Anchoring Bias25.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.2%MPR News: 6.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.7%MPR News: 4.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 54.5%The Associated Press: 11.2%MPR News: 25.4%Framing Effect54.5%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 7.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 18.9%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 1.8%Hindsight Bias18.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.1%MPR News: 11.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%MPR News: 4.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 18.2%The Associated Press: 10.9%MPR News: 18.5%Negativity Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%MPR News: 8.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.0%MPR News: 2.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%MPR News: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MPR News: 2.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MPR News: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 35.7%The Associated Press: 2.0%MPR News: 3.0%Recency Bias35.7%This article: 4.9%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.2%MPR News: 6.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%MPR News: 2.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%MPR News: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%MPR News: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.3%MPR News: 5.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.8%MPR News: 9.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 5.5%MPR News: 15.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 2.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%MPR News: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%MPR News: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 1.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%MPR News: 5.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%MPR News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.9%MPR News: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%MPR News: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%MPR News: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.5%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%MPR News: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%MPR News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%

143 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.