Pedestrian hit last month in southwest Las Vegas Valley dies from injuries 12%

By Tony Garcia7%

7/21/2026, 10:17:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Fundamental Attribution Error, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.4% saturation with 30 hits. Analysis detected 137 faulty-reasoning hits from 134 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 28.6% and a BS Rank of 12% (19,376 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 88.50% of the article peer group.

A pedestrian struck by a vehicle nearly a month ago in the southwest Las Vegas Valley has died. 
The victim had been taken to University Medical Center and died Monday, the Metropolitan Police Department said in a release Tuesday. 
The crash occurred just before 9:10 p.m. 
June 26 on West Flamingo Road, east of South New Forest Drive. 
Investigators say a 2013 Toyota Highlander was traveling westbound on Flamingo when the pedestrian crossed in front of the vehicle outside of a marked or implied crosswalk. 
The driver of the Toyota remained at the scene and showed no signs of impairment. 
This is the 65th traffic-related fatality in Metro’s jurisdiction for 2026. 
Contact Tony Garcia at tgarcia@reviewjournal.com or 702-383-0307. 
Follow @TonyGLVNews on X. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.2%Tony Garcia: 3.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Confirmation Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Tony Garcia: 2.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.4%Tony Garcia: 7.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 8.6%Negativity Bias22.4%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 20.1%Tony Garcia: 6.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error20.1%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Tony Garcia: 2.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Recency Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.2%Tony Garcia: 2.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.7%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.7%Tony Garcia: 5.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Unattributed Quote15.7%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tony Garcia: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Tony Garcia: 2.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.2%

134 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech113writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMetropolitan Police Department • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Metropolitan Police Department: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Metropolitan Police Department: 0.0%0.0%

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.