BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Halo Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 18.4% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 476 faulty-reasoning hits from 374 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.4% and a BS Rank of 37% (17,271 of 27,188 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.50% of the article peer group.

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection completed a $155 million modernization of the Coney Island Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility in southern Brooklyn, replacing the plant's main sewage pumping system to improve reliability and reduce energy use. 
The upgrade is part of the city's ongoing investment in wastewater infrastructure and was completed following a five-year construction project without interrupting service for nearly 600,000 residents. 
The project replaced pumps that move up to 220 million gallons of wastewater a day through the treatment process during storms and about 110 million gallons a day under normal conditions. 
It also included upgrades to the facility's mechanical, electrical, ventilation and control systems. 
"The Coney Island Wastewater Resource Recovery Facility paved the way for cleaner water and beaches across the city and this $155 million investment at the City's very first treatment plant honors its legacy as the starting point of modern wastewater treatment in New York," said DEP Commissioner Lisa F. 
Garcia. 
The new pumping system uses 20% less electricity, reducing operating costs and greenhouse gas emissions. 
According to the city, the emissions reduction is comparable to removing 109 gasoline-powered passenger vehicles from the road. 
The facility serves a 15,000-acre service area across southern and central Brooklyn. 
The investment helps protect Brooklyn's waterways, coastline and public health while improving the reliability of infrastructure that has served the borough for generations. 
The facility has been part of the city's wastewater system since 1886, when New York City's first wastewater treatment plant opened there to improve water quality at Coney Island's beaches. 
The modernization is designed to help the plant continue meeting environmental standards while supporting the community for years to come. 
A key part of the project was replacing pumping equipment that had operated continuously for more than 30 years. 
The upgraded system is expected to provide more dependable service while lowering energy consumption and emissions, making the facility more efficient over the long term. 
With construction complete, the facility will continue treating wastewater from homes, schools, businesses and factories before returning cleaned water to local waterways. 
It also supports the city's broader wastewater network, which treats about 1.3 billion gallons of wastewater a day at 14 wastewater resource recovery facilities. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.6%BKReader: 2.4%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.7%BKReader: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%BK Reader Staff: 1.5%BKReader: 1.6%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%BK Reader Staff: 0.8%BKReader: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias6.7%This article: 16.0%BK Reader Staff: 6.2%BKReader: 7.9%Framing Effect16.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.1%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 1.2%Status Quo Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.4%BK Reader Staff: 6.0%BKReader: 6.2%Optimism Bias18.4%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 5.6%BKReader: 5.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.2%BKReader: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.8%BKReader: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%BK Reader Staff: 2.7%BKReader: 2.4%Halo Effect13.1%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 0.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.1%Primacy Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.1%BKReader: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.6%BKReader: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%BK Reader Staff: 1.6%BKReader: 2.9%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 8.0%BKReader: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.3%BK Reader Staff: 1.5%BKReader: 1.3%Begging the Question5.3%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.6%BKReader: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.4%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.3%Composition/Division6.4%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.7%BKReader: 0.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.1%BK Reader Staff: 2.4%BKReader: 1.7%Unattributed Quote13.1%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.1%BK Reader Staff: 2.8%BKReader: 2.4%Biased Writer Voice13.1%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.7%BKReader: 3.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.4%BKReader: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

374 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker13%attributed speech325writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words100% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%DEP Commissioner Lisa F. Garcia: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%DEP Commissioner Lisa F. Garcia: 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.