PetSmart to close only location in San Francisco ⁠44%

By Katie Jerkovich⁠0%

7/12/2026, 12:46:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Availability Heuristic, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 335 faulty-reasoning hits from 482 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (11,666 of 20,518 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.90% of the article peer group.

See more of our coverage in your search results. 
Add The California Post on Google 
PetSmart is closing its only location in San Francisco. 
The company said its store at 2675 Geary Blvd. will cease operations on Sunday, July 19, citing the changing shopping needs of customers , KTVU reported. 
PetSmart said its last San Francisco store will cease operations on Sunday, July 19. 
MediaNews Group via Getty Images 
“As more customers choose online ordering, autoship and same-day delivery, we’re continuing to adapt how we serve pet parents across the Bay Area ,” a statement from the company read. 
In addition to its array of retail products, the store offered doggie day care and camps, boarding, grooming and training, according to it website . 
The company said it will “remain committed to serving pet parents throughout San Francisco, who will continue to have access to nearby PetSmart locations, including our Daly City store, as well as online shopping with convenient delivery options,” SF Gate reported. 
Sign up for the California Morning Report newsletter 
California's top news, sports and entertainment delivered to your inbox every day. 
Thanks for signing up! 
PetSmart launched in 1987 in Phoenix, Ariz., and exploded to more than 1,680 locations across America, in Canada and Puerto Rico. 
MediaNews Group via Getty Images 
“We are also expanding fulfillment capabilities at our Daly City location to help meet the needs of the community,” it added. 
PetSmart launched in 1987 in Phoenix, Ariz., and exploded to more than 1,680 locations across America, in Canada and Puerto Rico. 
It employs more than 50,000 people, with more than 700 veterinary offices . 
Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters 
California Post News : Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , X , YouTube , WhatsApp , LinkedIn 
California Post Sports Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , YouTube , X 
California Post Opinion 
California Post Newsletters : Sign up here! 
California Post App : Download here! 
Home delivery : Sign up here! 
Page Six Hollywood : Sign up here! 
In addition to its array of retail products, the store offered doggie day care and camps, boarding, grooming and training. 
Instagram/petsmartsf 
The company said employees will be given opportunities to relocate to other stores in the Bay Area along with transitional resources, KTVU reported. 
The closure comes after recent hearing by city officials to discuss a proposed a ban on stores in the city selling live pets . 
Existing state laws already prohibit the retail sale of cats, dogs , rabbits, ferrets, gerbils, hedgehogs, and sugarglides. 
The closure comes after recent hearing by city officials to discuss a proposed a ban on stores in the city selling live pets. 
UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images 
The only animals sold in California stores today are amphibians, fish, birds, guinea pigs, hamsters, and reptiles. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.7%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.5%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Katie Jerkovich: 5.9%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 13.8%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.0%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 14.4%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Katie Jerkovich: 3.7%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.4%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.3%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.2%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.6%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.5%Katie Jerkovich: 5.6%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization3.5%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.4%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 11.2%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.7%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.8%Katie Jerkovich: 4.1%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.8%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.9%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 7.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.1%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.1%Katie Jerkovich: 5.7%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote19.1%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.5%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 10.1%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 0.0%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Katie Jerkovich: 2.9%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Katie Jerkovich: 3.5%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…22.4%

482 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers42%attributed speech279writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageKTVU • 26 words • 0.0% coveragePetSmart • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMediaNews Group • 5 words • 0.0% coveragePetSmart • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageSF Gate • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMediaNews Group • 5 words • 0.0% coveragePetSmart • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post News • 17 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post Sports • 12 words • 100.0% coverageCalifornia Post Opinion • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageKTVU • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageUCG/Universal Images Group • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

SF Gate

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words20% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%SF Gate: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -28.3 ptsWriter: 28.3%SF Gate: 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.