azfamily⁠87%

Could this solve the Arizona water crisis? | Sonoran Sky Live ⁠79%

By Pete Mangione⁠95% Royal Norman⁠95%

7/23/2026, 10:16:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Optimism Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 50.7% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 159 faulty-reasoning hits from 71 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,768 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.20% of the article peer group.

First Alert Meteorologists Royal Norman and Pete Mangione are learning about harvesting water from the atmosphere. 
The guest today is Regents Professor Paul Westerhoff with Arizona State University's School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment. 
Paul explains how this process is done, how it could be better than desalination plants, and how anyone can start using this technology today. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 33.8%Pete Mangione: 22.5%azfamily: 4.1%Overconfidence Bias33.8%This article: 9.9%Pete Mangione: 6.6%azfamily: 15.9%Framing Effect9.9%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 33.8%Pete Mangione: 25.8%azfamily: 7.2%Optimism Bias33.8%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 18.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%Pete Mangione: 9.4%azfamily: 3.6%Halo Effect28.2%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 3.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 50.7%Pete Mangione: 37.6%azfamily: 6.8%Appeal to Authority50.7%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 22.5%azfamily: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 6.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 1.5%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.8%Pete Mangione: 11.3%azfamily: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice33.8%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Pete Mangione: 0.0%azfamily: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 33.8%Pete Mangione: 11.3%azfamily: 2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…33.8%

71 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker34%attributed speech47writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Westerhoff • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul Westerhoff

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Westerhoff: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Westerhoff: 100.0%100.0%

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.