BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Unattributed Quote, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 15.1% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 732 faulty-reasoning hits from 713 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.3% and a BS Rank of 24% (23,489 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.80% of the article peer group.

The first hearing for a proposed data center in Plymouth Township-Conshohocken area was interrupted multiple times as a crowd of residents booed, cursed and shouted at the developer’s attorney and witness. 
Developer Brian O’Neill is seeking approval for a 2 million-square-foot data center that is technically located within the boundary of Plymouth Township, Pennsylvania, but also impacts nearby residents of Conshohocken. 
The facility would span 10 existing buildings at the recently closed Cleveland-Cliffs steel mill, which sits on 66 acres of land along the Schuylkill River, about a mile from the Conshohocken borough’s vibrant downtown area. 
The Thursday night hearing before the Plymouth Township Zoning Hearing Board was contentious as attorneys representing several separate opponents to the proposal challenged the qualifications of the applicant’s expert witness. 
The board, an independent, quasi-judicial body appointed by the township council, will decide whether to approve the data center’s development. 
Residents have pushed back against the proposal, which they say could harm the environment, reduce property values and impact their quality of life. 
An online petition opposing the data center has garnered more than 4,000 signatures . 
“They just don’t care. 
They want the money, they want the win at this point,” said Ardis Leukens, who lives about 500 feet from the site, after the hearing. 
“They don’t care about people, because if [O’Neill] did, he would be listening to us and saying, ‘Hey, let’s build this area up,’ not knock it down, not destroy it.” 
Data center opponents make several legal challenges during the hearing 
Attorneys representing multiple parties that oppose O’Neill’s plan made several motions during the hearing, including a challenge to the adequacy of the developer’s application. 
They also questioned the qualifications of Richard Roseberry, senior principal at Colliers Engineering & Design, a witness called on to testify about the planning and zoning process. 
The motions were supported by loud applause from the audience, but were rejected by the board. 
Roseberry was called on by O’Neill’s legal team to interpret the township’s zoning ordinance. 
The data center battle over zoning 
Last month, O’Neill filed an application that challenges the validity of the current zoning ordinance, which does not authorize data centers as a permitted use in a heavy industrial zoning district within Plymouth Township. 
Although the law allows for O’Neill to apply for an exception, which he has done, he argues the law is exclusionary, and unfairly creates roadblocks to data center development. 
In response, Plymouth Township Council accused O’Neill of “throwing a tantrum.” 
Thursday night’s hearing will help the zoning board decide whether to approve the special exception application. 
After Roseberry explained the definition of a data center, he testified that their characteristics align with those of manufacturing, research and development, and warehousing  uses listed under the township’s ordinance. 
O’Neill’s attorney Edmund Campbell said if an applicant’s project is of similar character to one of those uses, the applicant has a right to that use. 
Campbell said that, according to state law, if an ordinance does not provide a use, the applicant gets that use by right, prompting O’Neill to file a validity challenge. 
“The similarities between manufacturing and data centers is that both process raw materials,” Roseberry said. 
“One process is a hard product, the other process is data. 
Data is a raw material, which is used to manufacture a product. 
AI is a product.” 
The statement was met with loud boos and jeers from the audience, with the reaction becoming so loud the court reporter had difficulty transcribing. 
Residents say they’re concerned a proposed data center in Plymouth Township near Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, would impact their quality of life. 
(Zoë Read/WHYY) 
“I appreciate the efforts that you’ve made to conduct the meeting …. 
We can’t get through a sentence or two without being interrupted,” said O’Neill’s attorney. 
David Sander, the board’s solicitor, attempted to appeal to the crowd. 
“I know you’re in an emotional situation. 
I know that you are invested in this,” he said. 
“I think that the zoning board understands that, and has seen the crowd and seen you tonight.” 
“Hear us!” 
shouted a member of the audience in response. 
“We are, we will, but we have to do it in a certain order,” Sander said calmly. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Zoë Read: 1.2%WHYY: 1.7%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Zoë Read: 0.7%WHYY: 2.0%Availability Heuristic2.0%This article: 4.3%Zoë Read: 0.7%WHYY: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic4.3%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.4%WHYY: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Zoë Read: 5.4%WHYY: 3.5%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 1.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Zoë Read: 0.5%WHYY: 1.1%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 15.1%Zoë Read: 6.9%WHYY: 4.2%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 4.1%Zoë Read: 3.2%WHYY: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias4.1%This article: 3.5%Zoë Read: 4.1%WHYY: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Zoë Read: 0.4%WHYY: 0.6%Recency Bias2.2%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Zoë Read: 1.6%WHYY: 0.2%Ad Hominem6.3%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.4%Zoë Read: 0.9%WHYY: 1.4%Appeal to Authority2.4%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 1.4%WHYY: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Zoë Read: 1.3%WHYY: 2.3%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.3%Zoë Read: 1.3%WHYY: 0.3%Bandwagon5.3%This article: 6.2%Zoë Read: 3.1%WHYY: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion6.2%This article: 11.9%Zoë Read: 2.0%WHYY: 0.4%Begging the Question11.9%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 1.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.3%Zoë Read: 0.7%WHYY: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.3%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Zoë Read: 2.7%WHYY: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%Zoë Read: 1.1%WHYY: 0.8%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.1%WHYY: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.8%Zoë Read: 1.6%WHYY: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice5.8%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.7%WHYY: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zoë Read: 0.0%WHYY: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

713 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers32%attributed speech485writer words
Selected voice

Ardis Leukens

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words24% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+40.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Ardis Leukens: 45.5%45.5%Biased Writer Voice-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Ardis Leukens: 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.