Waterlogged ground could prompt return of floods on Monday 28%

By Tyler A. McNeil29%

8/2/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Recency Bias, with Anchoring Bias as the most egregious example at 18.6% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 618 faulty-reasoning hits from 371 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.4% and a BS Rank of 28% (19,207 of 26,367 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.80% of the article peer group.

ALBANY  Last week’s torrential rain will be to blame, meteorologists said, if overnight downpours cause a return of flooding on Monday. 
The National Weather Service in Albany expects showers to hit the saturated grounds of the Capital Region and Hudson Valley overnight, less than a week after a whopper of a storm drenched the area. 
Severe thunderstorms are also expected. 
Up to a half inch of rain could hit the Albany area by Monday. 
The greater Poughkeepsie area could get up to two inches of rain, National Weather Service meteorologist Brian Frugis said. 
On Saturday, the agency placed a wide swath of the state from the town of Webb in northern Herkimer County to Long Island in a zone for “marginal risk” for excessive rainfall. 
This means there is a 5% possibility of isolated flash floods in areas with rapid runoff. 
Real-time updates: Weather across upstate | Extreme weather risks | Power outages across New York | How much rain did we get? 
The soil remains soaked from last week’s storm, leaving little room for more rain. 
“If areas down south can get a quick inch or two in a short period of time with the way the ground has been, there could be some localized flooding,” Frugis told the Times Union. 
“But any flooding that does occur must be more isolated and minor compared to what we saw last week.” 
On Wednesday, 5.44 inches of rain were recorded at Albany International Airport  the most in a day since Sept. 
16, 1999. 
Schodack received the most of any town: 11.8 inches of rain. 
Heavy downpours and flash floods of the sort hadn’t been seen in the area since Tropical Storm Irene traversed the state in 2011. 
This led the Capital Region, previously running at a rainfall deficit, to move 2.98 inches above the average yearly rainfall total, 26.21 inches. 
The mid-Hudson Valley region is still running a rainfall deficit, according to Frugis. 
Less saturation could prevent creek flooding in the Hudson Valley. 
“But certainly if they get a lot of rain in a short period of time. 
It could definitely cause some issues, especially in the urban areas,” he added. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.1%Times Union: 2.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Tyler A. McNeil: 4.4%Times Union: 0.9%Anchoring Bias18.6%This article: 12.1%Tyler A. McNeil: 3.9%Times Union: 1.9%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 6.2%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.4%Times Union: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.7%Times Union: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias9.4%This article: 11.1%Tyler A. McNeil: 1.7%Times Union: 2.7%Framing Effect11.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.2%Times Union: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.8%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.3%Times Union: 0.7%Status Quo Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 3.7%Times Union: 1.5%Optimism Bias7.0%This article: 17.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 4.4%Times Union: 1.0%Pessimism Bias17.0%This article: 11.1%Tyler A. McNeil: 8.9%Times Union: 6.3%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.5%Times Union: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.4%Times Union: 0.8%Halo Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.6%Tyler A. McNeil: 2.1%Times Union: 1.0%Recency Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 1.8%Times Union: 1.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.4%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.2%Times Union: 0.4%False Dilemma2.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.6%Tyler A. McNeil: 1.1%Times Union: 1.5%Hasty Generalization8.6%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 1.0%Times Union: 1.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.2%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.6%Times Union: 0.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.2%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.4%Times Union: 0.1%Composition/Division6.2%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.4%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.6%Times Union: 0.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.7%Times Union: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.4%Tyler A. McNeil: 1.7%Times Union: 2.0%Unattributed Quote9.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.4%Tyler A. McNeil: 1.8%Times Union: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.9%Times Union: 0.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.0%Times Union: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Tyler A. McNeil: 0.6%Times Union: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.9%

371 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers39%attributed speech225writer words
Selected voice

Brian Frugis

83%flagged-word coverage
114 attributed words78% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote+30.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Brian Frugis: 30.7%30.7%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Brian Frugis: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Brian Frugis: 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.