Las Vegas may see its hottest weekend of the year amid extreme heat wave 15%

By Mark Davis17%

7/25/2026, 5:00:17 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 35.4% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 315 faulty-reasoning hits from 274 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.1% and a BS Rank of 15% (18,671 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 85.30% of the article peer group.

The weekend has arrived but the extreme heat is staying around. 
The Las Vegas Valley is under an extreme heat warning, which started Thursday morning and lasts through 7 p.m. 
Monday. 
High temperatures will hover around 112 degrees Saturday and Sunday, the NWS said. 
On Friday, Harry Reid International Airport reached 114 degrees, making it the new hottest day of 2026, said Morgan Stessman, a meteorologist at the National Weather Service office in Las Vegas. 
It was 112 on Thursday. 
The average high for late July is 105. 
Meteorologist Matt Woods of the NWS said the “bigger concern” during this heat wave are the overnight lows, which won’t drop below 90 in many areas of the valley. 
The average overnight low is 83. 
Woods said the valley may break overnight low heat records but likely won’t break any daytime heat records. 
Weather facts 
 On June 23, Reid recorded 0.02 inches of rain, breaking a rainless streak of 124 days. 
It was the only rainfall of the month. 
 Last month was the seventh-warmest June on record, with an average temperature of 91.1 degrees, the NWS said. 
It was the first June since June 2022 that did not see a temperature of 110 or above. 
 Las Vegas hit 100 degrees for the first time this year on May 8. 
 The temperature hit 98 on March 25 at the airport, the hottest March day ever in Las Vegas. 
The valley saw eight consecutive days of record-breaking heat that month, the hottest March in history. 
Contact Mark Davis at mdavis@reviewjournal.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Mark Davis: 2.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.9%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 1.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Mark Davis: 1.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Availability Heuristic2.9%This article: 5.8%Mark Davis: 1.9%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 6.6%Mark Davis: 2.2%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Hindsight Bias6.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Mark Davis: 3.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 5.3%Framing Effect10.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Mark Davis: 7.7%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 8.6%Negativity Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Mark Davis: 2.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.1%Recency Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.4%Mark Davis: 11.8%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority35.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 3.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.9%Mark Davis: 2.3%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.4%Mark Davis: 4.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.2%Anecdotal12.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.4%Mark Davis: 0.1%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.4%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.6%Mark Davis: 3.5%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.6%Unattributed Quote10.6%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Davis: 0.0%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.8%Mark Davis: 0.6%Las Vegas Review-Journal: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.8%

274 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers17%attributed speech227writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageMatt Woods • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWoods • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Matt Woods

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words62% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Matt Woods: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Matt Woods: 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.