BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 16.6% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 177 faulty-reasoning hits from 145 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.1% and a BS Rank of 13% (24,624 of 28,109 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

Disgust: The Unexpected Psychological Reason Why Some People Dislike Density 
Displacing Black Time and Space in Philadelphia 
It’s Time for City Planners To Be Proactive About Church Property Transitions 
Our Planning Process is Broken. 
Street Experiments Can Help. 
Planning for Innovative Urban Mobility in Jersey City 
Climate Change  and Transformative Urban Leadership  Set to Shape Atlanta’s Future 
Want to Invigorate Community Engagement? 
Break out the Building Blocks. 
Creating Equitable Infrastructure 
Next City Vanguard Conference Big Idea Exchange 
LEARN-ing to Sustain a City’s Culture and Character 
How a Year-old Virtual University is Changing Design Education 
Solutions of the Year: A Next City Reporters Roundtable 
How Covid-19 Inspired Oakland to Get Real About Equitable Urban Planning 
Students’ Hands-On Experience Creates Sustainable, Equitable Parks 
Maintaining Data on the Curb with CurbLR: A New Open Standard 
Building Capacity Together Through Community Based Learning 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Next City: 2.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Next City: 2.6%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Next City: 12.9%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.3%Next City: 1.0%Status Quo Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.6%Next City: 4.4%Optimism Bias16.6%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Next City: 5.7%Negativity Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Next City: 1.2%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%Next City: 5.9%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.4%Next City: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 16.6%Next City: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.6%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.7%Next City: 0.2%Burden of Proof11.7%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.2%Next City: 1.1%Anecdotal6.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Next City: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Next City: 0.1%Middle Ground2.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 11.7%Next City: 5.1%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 0.0%Next City: 11.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 2.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

145 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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