Asking Eric: Boyfriend has to defer college and wants girlfriend to stay behind with him ⁠6%

By R Eric Thomas⁠41%

7/22/2026, 3:00:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 1 faulty reasoning type, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 38.5% saturation with 30 hits. Analysis detected 30 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 15.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠6% (25,068 of 26,447 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.80% of the article peer group.

Advice on relationships, family, work and everyday life with practical, compassionate guidance and a touch of humor. 
Asking Eric: Boyfriend has to defer college and wants girlfriend to stay behind with him 
By R Eric Thomas | eric@askingeric.com | Tribune Content Agency 
PUBLISHED: July 22, 2026 at 6:00 AM EDT 
Subscribe to continue reading this article. 
Already subscribed? 
To log in, click here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.6%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.5%Baltimore Sun: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.9%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.5%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.2%Baltimore Sun: 3.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.6%Baltimore Sun: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.2%Baltimore Sun: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 5.4%Baltimore Sun: 4.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.0%Baltimore Sun: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.7%Baltimore Sun: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.8%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.7%Baltimore Sun: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.7%Baltimore Sun: 1.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 5.3%Baltimore Sun: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.5%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.4%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 2.2%Baltimore Sun: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.1%Baltimore Sun: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 3.6%Baltimore Sun: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.2%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.5%Baltimore Sun: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.9%Baltimore Sun: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.1%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.7%Baltimore Sun: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.3%Baltimore Sun: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 1.7%Baltimore Sun: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 7.2%Baltimore Sun: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R Eric Thomas: 0.0%Baltimore Sun: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 38.5%R Eric Thomas: 1.3%Baltimore Sun: 3.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…38.5%

78 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech55writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
13 attributed words57% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +69.1 ptsWriter: 30.9%Tribune Content Agency: 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.