Next City⁠64%

Urbanist News - Top Stories and In-Depth Features from Next City ⁠79%

7/30/2026, 6:11:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 110 hits. Analysis detected 361 faulty-reasoning hits from 110 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (6,041 of 28,109 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.50% of the article peer group.

Next City goes beyond pithy headlines and sound bites, publishing original, in-depth features on urbanist news issues critical to our shared future. 
Our daily stories and in-depth feature articles, written by journalists from around the globe, span a wide range of topics, from transportation and infrastructure, to affordable housing, to environmental and sustainability issues, to economic justice. 
In an age when original, on-the-ground reporting is increasingly rare, we send our writers into urban communities to produce our award-winning fact-finding and storytelling. 
Our features archive goes back more than a decade, so you're sure to find your next great read. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Next City: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Next City: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias16.4%This article: 68.2%Next City: 14.2%Framing Effect68.2%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 4.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 5.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%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: 1.4%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: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%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: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.8%Next City: 1.1%Appeal to Authority21.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.8%Next City: 5.6%Hasty Generalization21.8%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%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: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Next City: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 4.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 12.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Next City: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Next City: 2.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…100.0%

110 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker100%attributed speech0writer words
Selected voice

Next City

100%flagged-word coverage
110 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Next City: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Next City: 100.0%100.0%

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.