Mother’s call to police sparked urgent search before San Diego mosque shooting ⁠18%

By Mariana Alfaro⁠0% Karin Brulliard⁠0%

5/18/2026, 8:34:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 30% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 99 faulty-reasoning hits from 80 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠18% (18,055 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

Three men were fatally shot at the Islamic Center of San Diego on Monday morning, and two teenage suspects were found dead nearby shortly after, authorities said. 
The attackers’ motive was not immediately clear, and San Diego Police Chief Scott Wahl said they had made no known threat to the mosque. 
But he said “hate rhetoric was involved,” and investigators are treating the shooting as a hate crime. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 2.5%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 2.8%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 6.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.0%Mariana Alfaro: 35.5%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect15.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 1.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Mariana Alfaro: 39.1%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias21.3%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 1.4%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.3%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 3.4%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.3%Mariana Alfaro: 7.3%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority21.3%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 4.4%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 3.1%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 10.1%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.0%Mariana Alfaro: 8.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 30.0%Mariana Alfaro: 1.9%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)30.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.3%Mariana Alfaro: 6.1%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote21.3%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 6.4%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 25.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 2.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 8.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 1.1%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mariana Alfaro: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

80 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech39writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageScott Wahl • 24 words • 0.0% coverageScott Wahl • 17 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Wahl

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Unattributed Quote+41.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Wahl: 41.5%41.5%

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.