Jiashun Zhou weaves an expansive world 47%

By Lori Waxman56%

7/23/2026, 7:10:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 43.9% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 222 faulty-reasoning hits from 221 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.6% and a BS Rank of 47% (11,690 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.40% of the article peer group.

In the project 60 wrd/min art critic, writer Lori Waxman explores how art writing can serve an expanded field of artists—including those incarcerated, trying to gain visas, working to establish themselves professionally, or just wanting feedback for a secret hobby. 
For this iteration, Waxman reviews a recently completed project by Chicago-based artist Jiashun Zhou. 
Jiashun Zhou 
Over the past year, Jiashun Zhou completed his most ambitious work yet—a quartet of floor loom weavings that envision an idyllic building ringed by a deep outdoor walkway, columned in pink and covered in purple-red roofing. 
Yellow grounds and green foliage extend the landscape with endless gardens, in an aesthetic that moves between de Chirico and Arts and Crafts. 
The mural-size Hallway, so large it extends around two corners, feels expansive enough to walk right into. 
Threshold Space lets the weather in, blustery and unruly. 
The diptych Staying offers a calming view from the inside. 
Thaw, the smallest of them all by many inches, is also the most stunning, out of focus like a day that’s too bright and hazy, warp threads hanging as if melting in the sun. 
From afar, Zhou’s imagery achieves a trompe l’oeil effect; up close, the tapestries break down into their individually colored threads. 
I want to be there. 
—Lori Waxman 7/16/26 4:26 PM 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.1%Lori Waxman: 6.0%Chicago Reader: 3.3%Framing Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 16.3%Lori Waxman: 5.4%Chicago Reader: 3.0%Optimism Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Lori Waxman: 5.9%Chicago Reader: 4.9%Negativity Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 8.0%Chicago Reader: 6.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.3%Lori Waxman: 0.8%Chicago Reader: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion2.3%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Lori Waxman: 0.8%Chicago Reader: 0.8%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 43.9%Lori Waxman: 33.0%Chicago Reader: 12.2%Biased Writer Voice43.9%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 0.0%Chicago Reader: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

221 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.3%attributed speech216writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLori Waxman • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lori Waxman

100%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lori Waxman: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.9 ptsWriter: 44.9%Lori Waxman: 0.0%0.0%

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.