A South Philly car crash killed a 16-year-old girl and hospitalized 5 other teens 5%

By Brett Sholtis0%

7/24/2026, 3:52:25 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Optimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.6% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 268 faulty-reasoning hits from 248 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 20.3% and a BS Rank of 5% (20,836 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.20% of the article peer group.

Pennsylvania State Police are investigating after a car full of teenagers crashed in South Philly early Friday morning, killing a 16-year-old girl and sending five others to the hospital. 
Around 1:30 a.m., Philadelphia police requested state police assistance to close the offramp from I-95 southbound to Columbus Boulevard after a “serious” crash, state police said. 
When troopers arrived, they determined the vehicle crash began on the interstate. 
The car, a Nissan Maxima, “exited the off-ramp at a high rate of speed, struck the concrete median prior to the traffic light, and became airborne until coming to final rest in the center of the intersection,” said state police Trooper Paul Holdefer. 
Six teens  four of them sitting in the back  were inside the Nissan, Holdefer said. 
A 16-year-old girl who was sitting “in the center rear of the vehicle” was pronounced dead at Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Holdefer said. 
Another girl and the 17-year-old boy who was driving the car also were taken to Thomas Jefferson University Hospital. 
A 17-year-old girl who’d been sitting in the back was taken to Penn Presbyterian Medical Center in critical condition, Holdefer said. 
Two 17-year-old boys, one who had been sitting in the front passenger seat, and the other in the rear, were taken to Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and were in stable condition. 
Police did not identify anyone involved in the crash, which remains under investigation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 1.4%Inquirer.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 4.4%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Brett Sholtis: 4.0%Inquirer.com: 5.0%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 9.3%Brett Sholtis: 1.9%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Loss Aversion9.3%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 12.5%Brett Sholtis: 3.1%Inquirer.com: 2.7%Optimism Bias12.5%This article: 8.5%Brett Sholtis: 1.8%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Pessimism Bias8.5%This article: 22.6%Brett Sholtis: 3.7%Inquirer.com: 5.7%Negativity Bias22.6%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 2.0%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 2.4%Inquirer.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 4.1%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.3%Brett Sholtis: 3.4%Inquirer.com: 2.3%Appeal to Authority17.3%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 2.3%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.3%Brett Sholtis: 3.1%Inquirer.com: 1.3%Unattributed Quote17.3%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.6%Brett Sholtis: 4.0%Inquirer.com: 4.4%Biased Writer Voice5.6%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 1.1%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brett Sholtis: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Brett Sholtis: 1.6%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.3%

248 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker62%attributed speech94writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Holdefer • 43 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Holdefer • 17 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Holdefer • 23 words • 100.0% coveragePaul Holdefer • 19 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Holdefer • 21 words • 0.0% coveragePaul Holdefer • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Paul Holdefer

89%flagged-word coverage
154 attributed words100% of attributed speech15% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Unattributed Quote+27.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Holdefer: 27.9%27.9%Attempt to Sell a Product +14.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Paul Holdefer: 14.9%14.9%Biased Writer Voice-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Paul Holdefer: 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.