The story accurately states that the Trump administration used a formula to calculate tariff rates, which aligns with the information that a specific mathematical formula was indeed used. However, the story lacks detailed information about the formula itself, such as how it involves dividing a country's trade surplus with the U.S. by the value of its exports, then dividing the result by two to determine the tariff rate. While the claim about economists reacting to this formula is correct, the story does not specify which economists or their specific criticisms, which could lead to questions about the truthfulness and precision of these reactions. Overall, the story's claims are generally supported but require more specificity to fully verify accuracy.

The story presents a basic overview of the Trump administration's tariff policy, mentioning both the administration's perspective and the reactions of economists. However, it lacks a comprehensive range of viewpoints, particularly from international perspectives or detailed economic analyses that might oppose or support the policy. The absence of specific economist names or detailed critiques gives the impression of an imbalanced presentation, as it does not fully explore the breadth of opinions on the matter. This omission could lead to perceived favoritism towards the administration's narrative without adequately representing dissenting voices.

The story is relatively clear in its language and structure, providing a straightforward account of the Trump administration's use of a formula to calculate tariff rates. However, the lack of detail about the formula and the economists' reactions can lead to confusion or incomplete understanding for readers seeking a deeper insight into the issue. The story could benefit from a more detailed explanation of the key points to enhance clarity and comprehension.

The story mentions CNN anchors Dana Bash and Phil Mattingly as sources, which suggests a reliance on reputable media figures for information. However, the story does not provide direct quotes or detailed attributions from these anchors or other primary sources, such as official government documents or statements from economists. The lack of diverse and authoritative sources weakens the story's reliability, as it does not draw from a wide range of credible voices or provide sufficient attribution to substantiate its claims.

The story lacks transparency in terms of explaining the methodology behind the tariff calculation or the specific reactions from economists. It does not disclose the sources of its information beyond mentioning CNN anchors, nor does it provide context about the potential implications or conflicts of interest that might affect the story's impartiality. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to fully understand the basis of the claims made and assess the story's credibility independently.