WAMU15%

The view of Iran from the Pentagon 8%

7/21/2026, 7:52:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.4% saturation with 46 hits. Analysis detected 75 faulty-reasoning hits from 106 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 25% and a BS Rank of 8% (18,928 of 20,517 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.30% of the article peer group.

The Pentagon has identified two U.S. service members who were killed on a military base in Jordan in Iranian strikes over the weekend. 
A third service member is missing in action according to U.S. 
Central Command. 
However, unidentified remains were discovered in the area of the strikes on Sunday. 
Those strikes came as the memorandum of understanding establishing a ceasefire between the U.S. and Iran collapsed. 
And on Monday, the Pentagon disclosed that the U.S. has suffered almost 100 military casualties in the past two weeks as the conflict between the two countries has reignited. 
What do we know? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 4.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 43.4%WAMU: 7.7%Negativity Bias43.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 27.4%WAMU: 1.2%Recency Bias27.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 4.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

106 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker1.9%attributed speech104writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Central Command • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

U.S. Central Command

0%flagged-word coverage
2 attributed words100% of attributed speech44% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.