Alright, imagine you're playing with Legos!

1. **Stocks**: Pretend each Lego block represents a tiny piece of a big toy company. When you buy a stock, you're buying some of those blocks and becoming a tiny bit of the owner of that company.

2. **Price Change**: Now, let's say your friend wants to trade their Star Wars Legos for your Cars set. They might give you more or fewer blocks depending on how much they like each set. The price goes up when people want more of what you have (more blocks), and down when they don't (fewer blocks).

3. **Risers**: If the company is doing really well, like if the Cars movie just came out and everyone wants your Legos, then the price might go up quickly! That's called a riser.

4. **Fallers**: But maybe the new Batman movie is coming out and everyone wants that instead. So, people don't want your Legos as much, and you might have to give more blocks to trade for other sets. That's when the price goes down, or falls.

So, when people talk about stocks going up or down, they're just saying that trading prices are changing because of what people want at that moment. Read from source...

Based on the provided text, I'll do my best to simulate a conversation with me (let's call this bot **DanBot**) as a writer's assistant, addressing potential criticisms, biases, and other aspects of the given article.

**DAN**: Hey AIBot, could you help me check for any biases or inconsistencies in this text?

**DanBot**: Of course! Here are some points to consider:

1. **Bias**:
- The article heavily relies on a single source (Gary Black) and doesn't present contrasting views.
- It starts with an unverified claim that the market isn't pricing in Tesla's potential disruption, which could be seen as biased.
- The use of terms like "disruptive" might inadvertently create a positive bias towards Tesla.

2. **Inconsistencies**:
- The article mentions Donald Trump in relation to electric vehicles (EVs), but it doesn't clearly explain how he's connected to the main topic of the article (Tesla).
- Also, it states that EV adoption is "rapidly gaining momentum," yet later mentions Kaustubh Bagalkote's bearish stance on Tesla without countering his arguments or providing evidence for contrary views.

3. **Rational arguments and emotional behavior**:
- The text makes several claims but lacks concrete data or examples to support them, which could make it seem irrational.
- The use of phrases like "disruptive force" and "gaining momentum" might evoke emotion, making readers more prone to accept the presented ideas without critical assessment.

**DAN**: Thanks for pointing that out. What about potential improvements?

**DanBot**: Here are some suggestions:

- Provide a balanced view by including different perspectives on Tesla's prospects.
- Back up claims with data and examples from reliable sources.
- Avoid emotive language, and focus more on objective reporting.
- Make sure to explain the connection between Donald Trump and EVs in the context of Tesla.
- Ensure consistency in presenting both bullish (e.g., Gary Black) and bearish (e.g., Kaustubh Bagalkote) views on Tesla's future.

By addressing these points, you can create a more well-rounded, fair, and engaging article.

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

**Positive**: The article mentions that Tesla's stock rose by about 7% after hours following Elon Musk's tweet about a potential increase in production and lowering of prices. It also states that analyst Gary Black is bullish on Tesla.

**Neutral**: Most of the article presents factual information without expressing a particular sentiment, such as mentioning Trump's comments, EVs gaining momentum, or Musk's tweets.

**No Negative or Bearish Sentiments** are expressed in the text. The highest sentiment would be **Positive**, based on the mentions of stock rise and analyst bullishness.