A Look at the Plans for Trump’s ‘Triumphal Arch’ ⁠50%

By Shawn Paik⁠0%

4/16/2026, 2:32:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 62.5% saturation with 45 hits. Analysis detected 229 faulty-reasoning hits from 72 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠50% (10,940 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.00% of the article peer group.

The structure proposed for President Trump’s arch would be 250 feet, more than twice the height of the Lincoln Memorial. 
It would sit near Arlington National Cemetery. 
A commission filled with Trump appointees is to review plans on Thursday. 
The United States’ triumphal arc will be outfitted with beautiful artwork and depictions celebrating the success of the American people over our 250-year history. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.7%Shawn Paik: 2.7%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias16.7%This article: 27.8%Shawn Paik: 3.6%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias27.8%This article: 27.8%Shawn Paik: 4.1%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic27.8%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 1.6%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 8.2%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 62.5%Shawn Paik: 11.5%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect62.5%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 8.8%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Shawn Paik: 2.6%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 1.8%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 4.0%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Shawn Paik: 1.1%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error16.7%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 4.3%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Shawn Paik: 9.0%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect33.3%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.9%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 3.7%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 2.0%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 5.4%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 33.3%Shawn Paik: 8.8%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion33.3%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 2.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.9%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 2.6%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 7.9%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.8%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 33.3%Shawn Paik: 16.2%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice33.3%This article: 33.3%Shawn Paik: 5.9%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination33.3%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 2.2%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shawn Paik: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

72 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.