2 fatally shot in Hyde Park 5%

By Sun-Times Wire5%

7/24/2026, 12:05:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 33 hits. Analysis detected 131 faulty-reasoning hits from 111 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.4% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,826 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.20% of the article peer group.

Two people were fatally shot Thursday afternoon in Hyde Park, according to Chicago police. 
A 24-year-old man and 27-year-old woman were found inside a vehicle in the 5900 block of East Ellis Avenue at 5:35 p.m. with single gunshot wounds to each of their heads, police said. 
They were both taken to University of Chicago Medical Center where they later died. 
A dark sedan crashed on the east curb of Ellis Avenue with damage to its front, its airbags deployed and both front doors open. 
About a dozen officers processed the scene and put up red tape around 7 p.m. 
No one was in custody. 
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: 21.6%Sun-Times Wire: 2.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.9%Availability Heuristic21.6%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: 21.6%Sun-Times Wire: 2.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 5.3%Framing Effect21.6%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: 4.5%Sun-Times Wire: 0.3%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.6%Optimism Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Sun-Times Wire: 12.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 7.9%Negativity Bias5.4%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: 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: 29.7%Sun-Times Wire: 6.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Unattributed Quote29.7%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.4%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.3%Biased Writer Voice5.4%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: 29.7%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…29.7%

111 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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