Seeking a $54 billion arsenal of killer drones, Pentagon turns to former hobbyists ⁠91%

By Ian Duncan⁠0%

6/1/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 67.3% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 482 faulty-reasoning hits from 101 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠91% (2,126 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.30% of the article peer group.

A company that uses drones to analyze golf course grass. 
Another linked to a firm that hosts aerial light shows. 
And one founded by a 23-year-old former drone racing world champion. 
Any of them, the Pentagon says, could represent the future of warfare as officials scramble to plug what they see as a gaping hole in the United States’ military arsenal. 
Conflicts in Ukraine and Iran have shown the value of small, cheap drones, and the Trump administration has concluded that the U.S. desperately needs to catch up. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.7%Ian Duncan: 10.2%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias29.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%Ian Duncan: 28.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic26.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 26.7%Ian Duncan: 2.4%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias26.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 42.6%Ian Duncan: 37.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect42.6%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 1.2%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 1.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%Ian Duncan: 2.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias26.7%This article: 42.6%Ian Duncan: 26.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias42.6%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 5.1%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 7.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 67.3%Ian Duncan: 23.9%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority67.3%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.7%Ian Duncan: 16.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization26.7%This article: 19.8%Ian Duncan: 1.8%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring19.8%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 7.2%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.9%Ian Duncan: 8.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion12.9%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 4.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 26.7%Ian Duncan: 22.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 6.9%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 29.7%Ian Duncan: 5.6%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)29.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.7%Ian Duncan: 8.9%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote29.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 42.6%Ian Duncan: 22.8%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice42.6%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%Ian Duncan: 2.4%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias26.7%This article: 0.0%Ian Duncan: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

101 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker43%attributed speech58writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Pentagon • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pentagon

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Pentagon: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+69.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Pentagon: 69.8%69.8%Politically Right Leaning -46.6 ptsWriter: 46.6%Pentagon: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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