WAMU⁠15%

Why are investigators struggling to find the source of the cyclosporiasis outbreak? ⁠51%

7/21/2026, 5:05:49 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Status Quo Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.6% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 573 faulty-reasoning hits from 186 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,850 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.40% of the article peer group.

You may have heard of a parasite that’s causing some gastrointestinal distress. 
Cyclospora has sickened thousands of people across 34 states this summer – more than six times the number reported at this point last year. 
The CDC has linked a major cluster to shredded iceberg lettuce at Taco Bell in some states. 
And Taylor Farms de Mexico has now pulled all of its iceberg lettuce from the U.S. market despite an FDA finding that reports that its product contained the parasite were a false positive. 
We answer your questions about what cyclosporiasis is, how you get it, and why investigators have had such a hard time finding the source. 
<em><strong>We got a statement from the White House:</strong></em> 
<blockquote> 
<p><br aria-hidden="true" />The Trump administration’s top concern is the health and safety of the American people. 
The White House has been closely monitoring the CDC and FDA’s efforts to contain and trace this Cyclospora outbreak, and stands by to provide any assistance either agency needs to leave no stone unturned in this effort. 
</p> 
</blockquote> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.0%WAMU: 2.2%Confirmation Bias29.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%WAMU: 2.9%Availability Heuristic19.4%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: 12.9%WAMU: 5.2%Framing Effect12.9%This article: 17.7%WAMU: 1.4%Loss Aversion17.7%This article: 19.9%WAMU: 0.7%Status Quo Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.9%WAMU: 1.5%Optimism Bias19.9%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.6%WAMU: 7.4%Negativity Bias30.6%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%WAMU: 0.6%Halo Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.0%WAMU: 2.8%Appeal to Authority29.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.9%WAMU: 4.5%Hasty Generalization12.9%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.6%WAMU: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion8.6%This article: 19.9%WAMU: 0.6%Begging the Question19.9%This article: 9.1%WAMU: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.1%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: 2.5%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: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 17.7%WAMU: 0.1%Special Pleading17.7%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.9%WAMU: 1.2%Unattributed Quote19.9%This article: 4.8%WAMU: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.8%This article: 15.1%WAMU: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice15.1%This article: 12.9%WAMU: 1.0%Indoctrination12.9%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: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

186 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers28%attributed speech133writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageThe Trump administration • 16 words • 100.0% coverageThe White House • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The White House

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words70% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The White House: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-18.0 ptsWriter: 18.0%The White House: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%The White House: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.8 ptsWriter: 6.8%The White House: 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.