Iran says it is closing Strait of Hormuz, testing fragile agreement with U.S. ⁠83%

By Maegan Vazquez⁠0% Michael Birnbaum⁠0%

6/20/2026, 3:09:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 52 hits. Analysis detected 273 faulty-reasoning hits from 52 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,577 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.60% of the article peer group.

Iran’s military command said Saturday it is closing the Strait of Hormuz in response to Israeli strikes on Lebanon, according to state media, testing a fragile ceasefire agreement intended to lead to a broader peace with the United States. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 75.0%Maegan Vazquez: 4.1%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias75.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.8%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Maegan Vazquez: 22.4%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.9%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Maegan Vazquez: 12.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.4%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.5%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.1%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.9%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 5.8%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.4%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 75.0%Maegan Vazquez: 4.5%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)75.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 75.0%Maegan Vazquez: 5.6%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote75.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 2.4%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Maegan Vazquez: 16.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.9%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 3.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 1.5%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maegan Vazquez: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

52 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker75%attributed speech13writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageIran’s military command • 39 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Iran’s military command: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+0.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Iran’s military command: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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