WDIV31%

Severe storms, damaging winds possible overnight as cold front moves into Metro Detroit 12%

By Christina Burkhart29%

7/21/2026, 12:30:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Loss Aversion, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 37 hits. Analysis detected 129 faulty-reasoning hits from 241 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.6% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,363 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.50% of the article peer group.

Southeast Michigan saw hazy skies and a few stray showers in the Thumb region this evening. 
As a cold front moves through, we’ll see a better chance for rain overnight into Tuesday. 
A few storms tonight may be strong, and the Storm Prediction Center has placed all of Southeast Michigan under a Marginal Risk (level 1 out of 5) for severe weather. 
It’s the lowest chance of severe weather, but it’s still there, so make sure you have a way to get alerts overnight. 
Rain and storms look to arrive in Southeast Michigan after midnight. 
The main threat from any strong storms that develop will be damaging winds, but heavy rain, hail, and an isolated tornado are also possible. 
The main rain looks to move out for most areas by the morning commute. 
Spotty showers and thunderstorms will be possible into the afternoon as a cold front moves through. 
After starting the morning in the mid to upper 60s, afternoon temperatures Tuesday will reach the low to mid 80s. 
Air Quality Alerts are not expected tomorrow. 
Behind the cold front, Southeast Michigan will be cooler. 
Highs will be only around 75° on Wednesday and near 80° on Thursday. 
We’ll see more sun both days, staying dry through the weekend. 
Friday’s highs will be in the lower 80s before we’re into the mid to upper 80s Saturday and Sunday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 1.6%WDIV: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 2.9%WDIV: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.9%WDIV: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 1.0%WDIV: 4.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%Christina Burkhart: 2.2%WDIV: 0.7%Loss Aversion9.1%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Christina Burkhart: 9.7%WDIV: 2.0%Optimism Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.4%Christina Burkhart: 9.5%WDIV: 6.0%Negativity Bias15.4%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 1.3%WDIV: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.9%WDIV: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.4%Christina Burkhart: 6.1%WDIV: 3.9%Appeal to Authority12.4%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 5.2%WDIV: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.6%WDIV: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 1.5%WDIV: 1.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 9.1%Christina Burkhart: 3.3%WDIV: 1.9%Indoctrination9.1%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Christina Burkhart: 0.0%WDIV: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

241 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech211writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageStorm Prediction Center • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words100% of attributed speech36% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Storm Prediction Center: 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.