Earthquakes north of L.A. appear to be on or close to San Andreas, Garlock faults 39%

By Rong-Gong Lin II49%

7/13/2026, 10:34:21 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 20.5% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 1,407 faulty-reasoning hits from 683 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.7% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,343 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.00% of the article peer group.

Back-to-back earthquakes rocked the area north of Los Angeles near two of California’s most significant faults  including the mighty San Andreas  sending shock waves across the region. 
The first quake, a magnitude 4.1, hit at 3:38 a.m. 
Sunday just outside the unincorporated community of Frazier Park, near the Grapevine section of the 5 Freeway. 
Weak shaking was felt as far away as Santa Clarita, Palmdale and Bakersfield, according to the U.S. 
Geological Survey. 
It was followed by a magnitude 4.3 that ruptured at 9:40 a.m. 
Monday, with an epicenter in the Mojave Desert, roughly halfway between the towns of Ridgecrest and California City. 
Weak shaking was felt as far away as Los Angeles, Victorville and the Santa Clarita, San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys. 
The Frazier Park earthquake “was probably on the San Andreas,” said Kate Scharer, a USGS geologist. 
A magnitude 4.1 earthquake, however, is fairly small, the kind where people might feel “a little wiggle,” she added. 
The epicenter of that quake sits at the intersection of the San Andreas and Garlock faults. 
“It’s the intersection of the two biggest faults in the state, and there’s a lot of questions of about about how that area actually behaves,” said Julian Lozos, associate professor of geological sciences at Cal State Northridge. 
The southern San Andreas fault, which stretches from Monterey County through Los Angeles County and the Inland Empire to the Salton Sea near the Mexican border, is capable of a catastrophic quake, with some experts theorizing a magnitude 8.2 temblor is possible if the entire stretch ruptures. 
A powerful earthquake on this roughly 300-mile span would cause the worst shaking the Southern California region has felt since 1857 and send destructive tremors through Los Angeles and beyond. 
The 160-mile Garlock fault is less well known, but capable of producing a magnitude 8 earthquake, experts have said. 
A large quake there has the potential to send strong shaking to the San Fernando Valley, Santa Clarita, Lancaster, Palmdale, Ventura, Oxnard, Bakersfield and Kern County, one of the nation’s most productive regions for agriculture and oil production. 
The two faults also have the potential to interact with each other  as a major quake on the Garlock fault could destabilize the San Andreas. 
Monday’s Mojave Desert quake was just south of the Garlock fault, Lozos said. 
The two earthquakes are not unusual for California, and neither was it unusual for people in the L.A. 
Basin to feel them. 
The quakes don’t provide any hints of the exact timing or location of the next destructive temblor that will hit urban Southern California. 
But the quakes are a reminder to be prepared, and that earthquakes in the Mojave Desert are capable of affecting seismic stress on the San Andreas fault. 
“Whenever there’s a bigger earthquake out there, I mean, there’s always a concern of what it’s going to do to nearby faults like the San Andreas,” Lozos said. 
The recent mild quakes, he said, are “just a good reminder that we are on an active plate boundary with a lot of faults.” 
Earthquakes with modest magnitudes in the 4.0 range are strong enough that “people are going to notice it and talk about it.” 
These two quakes are “probably not big enough to cause a bigger thing, but it’s a sign to check that you’re prepared for when we inevitably do get a bigger thing,” Lozos said. 
There’s a 60% chance of a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake striking the Los Angeles region by 2045, according to USGS estimates published in 2015. 
The largest temblor to hit Southern California in recent memory was the magnitude 7.1 Ridgecrest earthquake, which hit at 8:19 p.m. on July 5, 2019. 
It caused damage in the town of Ridgecrest and was estimated to have caused billions of dollars in damage to the remote Naval Air Weapons Station China Lake, the Navy’s largest base for developing and testing weapons of warfare. 
Did you feel this earthquake? 
Consider reporting what you felt to the USGS. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.8%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.2%This article: 12.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 6.4%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic12.4%This article: 2.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic2.2%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias10.5%This article: 10.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect10.2%This article: 4.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion4.0%This article: 2.6%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 15.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias15.8%This article: 19.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 9.9%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 5.0%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority12.4%This article: 8.2%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 10.7%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope10.7%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.6%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization13.6%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.5%Rong-Gong Lin II: 4.5%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion20.5%This article: 4.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 3.8%Rong-Gong Lin II: 3.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 20.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)20.4%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.4%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.4%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 2.6%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 13.5%Rong-Gong Lin II: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination13.5%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rong-Gong Lin II: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

683 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers30%attributed speech478writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Geological Survey • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKate Scharer • 16 words • 100.0% coverageKate Scharer • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJulian Lozos • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJulian Lozos • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJulian Lozos • 28 words • 100.0% coverageJulian Lozos • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJulian Lozos • 33 words • 100.0% coverageU.S. Geological Survey • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Geological Survey • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Julian Lozos

100%flagged-word coverage
135 attributed words66% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Indoctrination+36.6 ptsWriter: 5.6%Julian Lozos: 42.2%42.2%Quote-first Misdirection+20.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Julian Lozos: 20.7%20.7%

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.