S.F. woman, 26, accused of sexual relationship with 17-year-old boy 26%

By Alyce McFadden32%

7/18/2026, 6:19:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Status Quo Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 35.7% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 395 faulty-reasoning hits from 157 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.8% and a BS Rank of 26% (16,288 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.40% of the article peer group.

A San Francisco woman has been arrested for alleged “inappropriate sexual conduct” with a teenage boy, the Concord Police Department said in a statement Friday. 
The woman, Sofia Ann-Buitron Drotts, was a temporary employee at Contra Costa County Health. 
Concord police said they began investigating Drotts, 26, after receiving a tip from the Contra Costa County Probation Department. 
Their investigation turned up evidence supporting allegations that Drotts had engaged in a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old in Concord, police said. 
Drotts had been taken into custody on charges related to the alleged relationship, police said, and they had not identified any other victims. 
Will Harper, a spokesperson for Contra Costa County Health, said in a statement that the department is aware that a temporary employee has been arrested, has “taken appropriate administrative action and is cooperating fully with law enforcement.” 
Drotts could not be reached for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.0%Alyce McFadden: 4.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Confirmation Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Alyce McFadden: 4.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.2%Availability Heuristic12.1%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 22.3%Alyce McFadden: 7.4%San Francisco Chronicle: 5.5%Framing Effect22.3%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 23.6%Alyce McFadden: 7.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.2%Status Quo Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Alyce McFadden: 4.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Pessimism Bias14.6%This article: 22.3%Alyce McFadden: 9.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 6.4%Negativity Bias22.3%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Alyce McFadden: 1.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.7%Alyce McFadden: 11.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.7%Appeal to Authority35.7%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.6%Alyce McFadden: 4.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%Burden of Proof14.6%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.5%Alyce McFadden: 1.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.1%Anecdotal4.5%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.0%Alyce McFadden: 4.7%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.6%Alyce McFadden: 7.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Unattributed Quote23.6%This article: 15.9%Alyce McFadden: 10.6%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection15.9%This article: 29.9%Alyce McFadden: 10.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice29.9%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alyce McFadden: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

157 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers80%attributed speech31writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageConcord Police Department • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageConcord Police Department • 19 words • 0.0% coverageConcord Police Department • 22 words • 0.0% coverageConcord Police Department • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWill Harper • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Will Harper

100%flagged-word coverage
37 attributed words29% of attributed speech55% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Will Harper: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+67.7 ptsWriter: 32.3%Will Harper: 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.