Mental health ⁠73%

By Maura Hohman⁠92% TODAY⁠88%

7/23/2026, 1:40:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 44.6% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 689 faulty-reasoning hits from 269 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (5,843 of 21,152 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.40% of the article peer group.

A therapist always does this on vacation to prevent burnout after returning home 
Too many choices may leave you paralyzed and anxious. 
Worried about high cortisol? 
The No. 1 thing you should do, according to a doctor 
Rep. 
Tom Kean returns to Congress after 4-month absence: ‘Grateful I accepted help' 
Extreme weather can whip up anxiety. 
Here's how having a safety plan can help 
Around 1 in 5 young people use AI chatbots for mental health advice, survey finds 
The No. 1 thing a neuroscientist does when he starts to feel anxious 
Mindfulness teacher shares her top 3 exercises to get beginners hooked on the practice 
What is ‘Ozempic personality'? 
Patient shares troubling GLP-1 impact on mental health 
Tai chi walking can boost balance, strength and more. 
Start with this exercise, experts say 
Scott Galloway calls out this 1 parenting style as a major driver of depression in teens 
Small talk is good for us. 
Many underestimate how much we'll enjoy it, study finds. 
Try this thought exercise to make your daily walk even healthier, psychiatrist says 
Therapist reveals her 1 daily ritual to combat loneliness 
Meta to pay $375 million after New Mexico jury says it harmed children's mental health 
World Happiness Report highlights social media's negative impact, ranks Finland as happiest country 
Psychiatrist reveals the sign of ADHD often overlooked in women 
Have mental health days gone too far? 
One teacher raises questions about resilience 
Using AI for advice or other personal reasons linked to depression and anxiety 
I was left out of a dinner with mom friends. 
The surprising reason why being excluded hurts 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.8%Maura Hohman: 3.6%NBC New York: 0.9%Confirmation Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Maura Hohman: 4.0%NBC New York: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 5.6%Maura Hohman: 1.9%NBC New York: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic5.6%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 1.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 17.1%Maura Hohman: 5.7%NBC New York: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias17.1%This article: 3.7%Maura Hohman: 1.2%NBC New York: 6.2%Framing Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Maura Hohman: 4.1%NBC New York: 3.6%Optimism Bias10.0%This article: 6.3%Maura Hohman: 2.1%NBC New York: 1.5%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 21.6%Maura Hohman: 8.8%NBC New York: 13.4%Negativity Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.3%Maura Hohman: 22.3%NBC New York: 6.8%Appeal to Authority19.3%This article: 8.6%Maura Hohman: 4.2%NBC New York: 0.6%False Dilemma8.6%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 27.1%Maura Hohman: 20.7%NBC New York: 2.8%Hasty Generalization27.1%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Maura Hohman: 1.7%NBC New York: 0.4%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 3.0%Maura Hohman: 1.0%NBC New York: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion3.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.0%Maura Hohman: 4.3%NBC New York: 4.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.6%Maura Hohman: 7.2%NBC New York: 1.4%Anecdotal18.6%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Maura Hohman: 2.2%NBC New York: 2.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 44.6%Maura Hohman: 14.9%NBC New York: 3.7%Unattributed Quote44.6%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.5%Maura Hohman: 12.5%NBC New York: 5.7%Biased Writer Voice17.5%This article: 3.3%Maura Hohman: 8.8%NBC New York: 0.9%Indoctrination3.3%This article: 5.6%Maura Hohman: 1.9%NBC New York: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maura Hohman: 0.0%NBC New York: 2.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

269 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers16%attributed speech226writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageTom Kean • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageScott Galloway • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageMeta • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Galloway

100%flagged-word coverage
16 attributed words37% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+59.3 ptsWriter: 40.7%Scott Galloway: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.8 ptsWriter: 20.8%Scott Galloway: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Scott Galloway: 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.