NTDā 100%

OfficerĀ PullsĀ DriverĀ FromĀ BurningĀ VehicleĀ inĀ TexasĀ ā 74%

7/18/2026, 7:00:29 PM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Optimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 42.9% saturation with 42 hits. Analysis detected 159 faulty-reasoning hits from 98 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.8% and a BS Rank of ā 74% (5,651 of 21,122 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 73.20% of the video peer group.

GETĀ OUTĀ OFĀ THEĀ CAR,Ā NOW.Ā GETĀ OUT.Ā GETĀ OUT.Ā GETĀ OUTĀ OFĀ THEĀ CAR.Ā 
GETĀ OUTĀ OFĀ THEĀ CAR.Ā LET'SĀ GO.Ā 
COMEĀ OUTĀ OFĀ THEĀ CAR.Ā OPENĀ IT.Ā OPENĀ IT.Ā 
OpenĀ it.Ā GetĀ out.Ā 
GiveĀ meĀ yourĀ hand.Ā GiveĀ meĀ yourĀ hand.Ā 
GiveĀ meĀ yourĀ hand,Ā now.Ā IĀ gotĀ you.Ā GETĀ MEĀ OUT.Ā 
ALLĀ RIGHT,Ā youĀ okay?Ā AnybodyĀ elseĀ inĀ theĀ car?Ā 
NoĀ oneĀ elseĀ inĀ theĀ car?Ā 
NoĀ oneĀ elseĀ inĀ theĀ car?Ā ComeĀ withĀ me.Ā 
He'sĀ okay.Ā 
>>Ā IsĀ thereĀ anybodyĀ else?Ā 
>>Ā 249Ā 
>>Ā 814660162Ā 
146Ā 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%NTD: 15.6%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 11.2%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias11.2%This article: 21.4%NTD: 12.1%Availability Heuristic21.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%NTD: 9.1%Overconfidence Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 22.8%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%NTD: 9.8%Optimism Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.7%NTD: 17.0%Negativity Bias32.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 8.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias9.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 14.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 17.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 42.9%NTD: 22.0%Appeal to Emotion42.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 6.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.3%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof13.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.0%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.1%NTD: 4.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gamblerā€™s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or Sā€¦0.0%

98 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loadingā€¦
Loadingā€¦
Loadingā€¦

Analysis

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