Two women ⁠1%

By Sun-Times Wire⁠5%

7/11/2026, 3:14:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 6.1% saturation with 10 hits. Analysis detected 20 faulty-reasoning hits from 163 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 3.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,767 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.50% of the article peer group.

Two women were found dead in the same home in Bucktown Friday, officials said. 
Sun-Times file photo 
Police are investigating the deaths of two women found inside a home in the Bucktown neighborhood Friday afternoon. 
Shirley Miller Colon, 36, and Taina Lopez Rios, 40, were dead on the scene shortly after 3 p.m. in a home Friday in the 2300 block of North Leavitt Street, according to the Cook County medical examiner’s office. 
Autopsies Saturday were inconclusive, and pending further studies, according to the medical examiner’s office. 
Detectives are conducting a death investigation and had no further information. 
Chicago Public Media 
What do Chicago teens need to feel welcome Downtown? 
Four shared their ideas 
Man found fatally shot in Roseland 
Ex-Chicago ransomware negotiator gets nearly 6 years in prison for aiding hackers 
Indicted downstate Rep. 
Carol Ammons won’t step down: ‘I have done nothing wrong’ 
Suspect in Indiana trooper’s shooting found shot to death 
2 killed in minivan-semitruck crash in Hegewisch 
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: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%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: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%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: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 12.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 4.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 6.1%Sun-Times Wire: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.1%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.1%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice6.1%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%

163 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers42%attributed speech95writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageSun-Times ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 18 words ‱ 0.0% coverageCook County medical examiner’s office ‱ 38 words ‱ 0.0% coveragemedical examiner’s office ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageChicago Public Media ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 12 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageCarol Ammons ‱ 10 words ‱ 100.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Carol Ammons

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words15% of attributed speech0% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Carol Ammons: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Carol Ammons: 100.0%100.0%

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.