AP News72%

Cyberattacks on Minnesota water systems investigated as officials warn about Iranian hackers 63%

By JAMIE STENGLE36% ERIC TUCKER50%

7/30/2026, 3:42:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 25.6% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 863 faulty-reasoning hits from 390 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.4% and a BS Rank of 63% (11,536 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.30% of the article peer group.

Authorities were working Thursday to find the source of cyberattacks that targeted over 30 water systems in Minnesota and came amid warnings that Iranian hackers have been focused on such systems. 
The FBI, which is investigating, has not publicly identified a culprit and a spokesperson declined to say Thursday who the bureau thought might be responsible. 
The FBI, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency and other agencies warned in an advisory last week that Iranian hackers have been targeting water and wastewater systems and the operational controls other critical infrastructure sectors. 
Digital warfare has become ingrained in military conflict, and local water plants or healthcare facilities often lack the funds and know-how to install the latest software patches or take other security steps. 
That has made them a favorite target, both because of the relative ease of penetrating them and because of the panic such disruptions can cause. 
Iran has the “geopolitical motivations” and a recent history of targeting water systems, said Cynthia Kaiser, the former deputy assistant director of the FBI’s cyber division who has been closely monitoring threats to critical infrastructure from hackers linked to the country. 
When it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s really important to call it out,” added Kaiser, who is now the senior vice president of Halcyon’s Ransomware Research Center. 
Minnesota IT Services said that as of Thursday, there were no active requests from Minnesota communities for residents to modify usage of their drinking water. 
The state agency said most of the confirmed attacks involved technology that water systems use to remotely monitor and control equipment. 
It said that being impacted meant investigators confirmed there was malicious activity involving the system’s technology and didn’t mean every impacted community had their water service disrupted. 
In Plymouth, a city of about 80,000 located outside of Minneapolis, officials said on social media that their water infrastructure communications had been restored by Tuesday afternoon following a cyberattack. 
The city said crews were able to continue operating the system during the outage and it didn’t have any impact on water levels or quality. 
The state agency said there are similarities among the incidents, including timing and the types of technology used, but investigators haven’t determined if the same culprit was behind each one. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.5%Jamie Stengle: 3.0%AP News: 1.9%Confirmation Bias18.5%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 2.0%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Jamie Stengle: 5.6%AP News: 2.5%Availability Heuristic14.4%This article: 8.2%Jamie Stengle: 0.6%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Jamie Stengle: 0.4%AP News: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias7.7%This article: 11.8%Jamie Stengle: 3.9%AP News: 7.2%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 6.9%Jamie Stengle: 0.6%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion6.9%This article: 6.4%Jamie Stengle: 0.3%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Jamie Stengle: 1.4%AP News: 2.0%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 8.2%Jamie Stengle: 1.0%AP News: 1.9%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 3.1%Jamie Stengle: 9.1%AP News: 8.7%Negativity Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.6%AP News: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.2%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Jamie Stengle: 0.9%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.3%AP News: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.7%Jamie Stengle: 0.9%AP News: 1.2%Recency Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.3%Jamie Stengle: 4.1%AP News: 3.3%Appeal to Authority22.3%This article: 7.7%Jamie Stengle: 0.2%AP News: 1.0%False Dilemma7.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.8%Jamie Stengle: 1.9%AP News: 2.3%Hasty Generalization11.8%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.2%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.2%Jamie Stengle: 4.1%AP News: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.4%Jamie Stengle: 0.7%AP News: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.4%Jamie Stengle: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.2%Jamie Stengle: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Composition/Division8.2%This article: 7.7%Jamie Stengle: 1.5%AP News: 1.1%Anecdotal7.7%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.6%Jamie Stengle: 1.5%AP News: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.6%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Jamie Stengle: 1.2%AP News: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 1.3%AP News: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.1%Jamie Stengle: 0.5%AP News: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice3.1%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jamie Stengle: 0.0%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

390 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers52%attributed speech189writer words
Selected voice

Cynthia Kaiser

100%flagged-word coverage
73 attributed words36% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Cynthia Kaiser: 0.0%0.0%

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.