BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Negativity Bias, and Anchoring Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 26% saturation with 149 hits. Analysis detected 1,323 faulty-reasoning hits from 574 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.7% and a BS Rank of 69% (9,523 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.90% of the article peer group.

The Nasdaq-100 just suffered its steepest monthly decline in more than a year. 
The tech-driven benchmark fell more than 7% in July, the most since a loss of 7.7% in March 2025. 
Attacks in and around the Persian Gulf and Iran, off again, on again oil shipments and volatile energy prices, questions over Federal Reserve policy and plunging semiconductor shares weighed on the Nasdaq-100 last month. 
Investors also challenged lofty tech stock valuations and doubted whether surging capital spending will generate adequate returns. 
Tesla and Alphabet recently lost hundreds of billions of dollars in market value after reporting their latest earnings . 
CNBC Pro looked for bright spots in the Nasdaq-100, comprised of the 100 largest non-financial stocks on the Nasdaq. 
First, we started by finding those few who advanced in July, weeding them down further by limiting our search to stocks rated buy by at least 60% of analysts and with potential upside of at least 25% based on consensus price targets. 
Here are the eight stocks that made the cut. 
Autodesk surged nearly 21% in July, lading the gainers. 
Roughly 75% of analysts rate it a buy and the average price target implies about 34% upside. 
The design software provider posted a strong fiscal first quarter, reporting 18% year-over-year revenue growth and announcing its intention to acquire MaintainX, a maintenance and operations software provider. 
Autodesk uses AI extensively across its software portfolio through a dedicated initiative called Autodesk AI and is investing $200 million in World Labs to strengthen a long-term AI foundation. 
"Our goal with MaintainX is to bring deep operational expertise, contextual data, and workflows that enhance our ability to use AI to converge digital and physical worlds," CEO Andrew Anagnost said at the time. 
Intuit , a close second to Autodesk, climbed roughly 20% in July. 
Sixty percent of analysts rate it a buy with the average price target implying 41% upside. 
The tax preparation software company delivered solid fiscal third quarter results , driven by an AI-driven expert platform strategy. 
Revenue grew to $8.6 billion, up 10% from $7.7 billion a year ago. 
The owner of TurboTax, Credit Karma, QuickBooks and Mailchimp raised full-year revenue guidance in May after QuickBooks revenue grew 22%. 
"The powerful combination of Intuit's proprietary data, domain-specific AI platform capabilities, and AI-powered human expertise is setting the standard for trusted financial intelligence," Intuit CEO and chairman Sasan Goodarzi said then. 
"As we look ahead, we are further scaling our growth engines." 
Broadcom gained 2% in July despite a broader sell-off in semiconductor stocks. 
More than 76% of analysts rate the stock a buy, the highest proportion in the screen, and the average price target suggests 37% upside. 
The chipmaker's AI business has continued to rapidly expand. 
Broadcom's revenue soared 48% to $22.2 billion in the second quarter ended in early May from the year-earlier period. 
AI semiconductor revenue more than doubled, climbing 143% to $10.8 billion, driven by demand for custom AI accelerators and networking products. 
"The momentum continues and in Q3 we expect semiconductor revenue from AI to grow over 200 percent year-over-year to $16 billion," CEO Hock Tan said during the last financials. 
Broadcom expanded a multiyear partnership with Meta Platforms earlier this year to develop successive generations of custom AI accelerator chips, supporting the Instagram and WhatsApp parent's growing AI infrastructure. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%Deena Zaidi: 6.2%CNBC: 3.6%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 17.2%Deena Zaidi: 9.5%CNBC: 1.9%Anchoring Bias17.2%This article: 7.0%Deena Zaidi: 4.7%CNBC: 2.5%Availability Heuristic7.0%This article: 1.6%Deena Zaidi: 0.4%CNBC: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic1.6%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Deena Zaidi: 2.1%CNBC: 4.7%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 3.3%Deena Zaidi: 0.8%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion3.3%This article: 2.1%Deena Zaidi: 0.5%CNBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 26.0%Deena Zaidi: 17.7%CNBC: 6.4%Optimism Bias26.0%This article: 3.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.7%CNBC: 1.7%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 20.2%Deena Zaidi: 6.4%CNBC: 4.9%Negativity Bias20.2%This article: 16.4%Deena Zaidi: 8.7%CNBC: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias16.4%This article: 5.9%Deena Zaidi: 1.5%CNBC: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Deena Zaidi: 6.0%CNBC: 2.0%Halo Effect13.2%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.7%Deena Zaidi: 3.6%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias12.7%This article: 1.6%Deena Zaidi: 0.4%CNBC: 0.2%Primacy Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.0%Deena Zaidi: 9.7%CNBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority15.0%This article: 1.7%Deena Zaidi: 0.4%CNBC: 0.8%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.6%Deena Zaidi: 1.9%CNBC: 3.2%Hasty Generalization1.6%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.4%Deena Zaidi: 1.4%CNBC: 1.8%Appeal to Emotion5.4%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 21.4%Deena Zaidi: 7.7%CNBC: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.4%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.7%CNBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.0%This article: 5.1%Deena Zaidi: 1.3%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature5.1%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.4%Deena Zaidi: 4.1%CNBC: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.4%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.9%Deena Zaidi: 1.5%CNBC: 1.9%Unattributed Quote5.9%This article: 5.9%Deena Zaidi: 1.5%CNBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 2.3%CNBC: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deena Zaidi: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Deena Zaidi: 0.8%CNBC: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.3%

574 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers20%attributed speech461writer words
Selected voice

Andrew Anagnost

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words30% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Anagnost: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrew Anagnost: 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.