Teen shot 7 times in Garfield Park 15%

By Sun-Times Wire5%

7/17/2026, 11:36:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 73.6% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 161 faulty-reasoning hits from 87 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31% and a BS Rank of 15% (18,703 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.50% of the article peer group.

A 17-year-old male was in critical condition after a shooting Friday afternoon in West Garfield Park, officials said. 
The teen was sitting in a vehicle in the 3800 block of West Madison Street around 4:53 p.m., when he was approached by two unknown people, according to Chicago police. 
The two fired multiple gunshots at the teen, police said, and he sustained seven gunshot wounds. 
He then self-transported to Stroger Hospital, where he was listed in critical condition. 
Detectives are investigating. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.4%Sun-Times Wire: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic18.4%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Sun-Times Wire: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.4%Sun-Times Wire: 12.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias26.4%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 55.2%Sun-Times Wire: 4.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority55.2%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 73.6%Sun-Times Wire: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote73.6%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

87 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker53%attributed speech41writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageChicago police • 30 words • 100.0% coverageChicago police • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chicago police

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words100% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+56.1 ptsWriter: 43.9%Chicago police: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.