Alright, imagine you're in a big toy store and you love playing with LEGO. HubSpot Inc. is like one of the coolest LEGO sets in the store. Right now, it costs $830.

Benzinga, who helps us know what's happening in this toy store (the stock market), asked some smart people (analysts) what they think about HubSpot. They say:

1. "Hey, I think this LEGO set is worth more! I'd pay $960 for it." That's what Oppenheimer said.
2. And another friend, Cowen & co., said, "I'd also pay more, $950 for that cool LEGO set."
3. But then, a different friend, UBS, said, "Let's not get too excited, I think it's only worth $790."

So, these friends have different ideas about how much the HubSpot LEGO set should cost. That's why some say 'Buy it!' (that's called a 'Buy' rating), and some say 'Wait until it gets cheaper!' (that's a 'Hold' or 'Sell' rating).

And now you know! You can decide if you want to buy this cool LEGO set today or wait for a better price. Just remember, these smart people sometimes make mistakes too, so always think for yourself when making big decisions like buying toys... I mean, stocks! Read from source...

Here are some points from your text that could be perceived as criticisms or highlights of inconsistencies and biases:

1. **"Story critics**": This phrase suggests there is a group of people criticizing the story.

2. **Highlighted inconsistencies**:
- "Inconsistencies" in itself implies that there were discrepancies in the information provided.
- The use of "in themselves" (as opposed to "in and of themselves") could be seen as an informal or casual language usage, which might not align with the expected formal tone in some contexts.

3. **Biases**:
- "Bias**es**" suggests that there is more than one bias present.
- The mention of "argued strongly for/against" could imply a lack of impartiality or objectivity.

4. **Irrational arguments**: This directly criticizes the logical soundness of the presented arguments, implying they are not well-reasoned or based on sound logic.

5. **Emotional behavior**: This criticism suggests that the article, or perhaps the responses to it, were driven by emotions rather than rational thought or facts.

As a language model, I'm providing these points as objective feedback based on your text. However, keep in mind that criticism is subjective and can vary depending on individual perspectives and cultural contexts.

Based on the provided text, here's a sentiment analysis of the article:

- **Positive:** The article mentions that HubSpot Inc.'s stock price has increased by 5.67% and several analysts have raised their price targets for the company.
- **Neutral:** Most of the information in the article is factual and doesn't express a strong opinion about the company's prospects.

There are no bearish, negative, or strongly bullish sentiments expressed in the text. The overall sentiment can be considered cautiously optimistic, given the recent gains in stock price and positive analyst ratings updates.

Sentiment: **Neutral/Cautiously Optimistic**