In Bunia’s Ebola fight, women are on the front lines often without protective gear 96%

5/30/2026, 12:53:22 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Representativeness Heuristic, and Anecdotal, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 99.4% saturation with 171 hits. Analysis detected 887 faulty-reasoning hits from 172 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 93.2% and a BS Rank of 96% (921 of 20,246 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 95.50% of the video peer group.

Lorsque une personne est malade, un membre de famille quelconque est malade bien dans la communauté, si la personne est malade, la personne de si une m donc une membre de communauté est malade, la personne qui va venir aider cette personne malade, c'est la femme. 
C'est 
la femme qui viendra faire les baai. 
C'est la femme qui viendra nourrir. 
C'est la femme encore qui sera  pour je sais pas laver les linges et tout. 
Les gardes des malades sont en général les femmes. 
Alors si la femme est exposée et que elle est infecté donc logiquement elle va passer l'effction à son entourage et les premières personnes qui vont être infectées ce sont ses enfants. 
L'enfant qu'elle les enfants que c'est les ses enfants qui les petits enfants qu'elle nourrit de suite. 
comme ça que la femme est la plus la femme, la jeune fille, les enfants sont les personnes les plus exposées pendant cette épidémie. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 30.8%Associated Press: 1.8%Confirmation Bias30.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Associated Press: 2.9%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 86.6%Associated Press: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic86.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Associated Press: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias18.6%This article: 22.1%Associated Press: 4.9%Framing Effect22.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 26.7%Associated Press: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect26.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Associated Press: 7.0%Negativity Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Associated Press: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Associated Press: 0.2%Primacy Effect5.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 99.4%Associated Press: 2.4%Hasty Generalization99.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.1%Associated Press: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.6%Associated Press: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.6%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 14.0%Associated Press: 0.3%Composition/Division14.0%This article: 36.0%Associated Press: 1.0%Anecdotal36.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Associated Press: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%Associated Press: 1.7%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 99.4%Associated Press: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice99.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

172 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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