8 suspects sought for stealing $10K-worth of Nike products from Dick’s Sporting Goods ⁠8%

By Jenny Sherman⁠4%

7/22/2026, 8:18:33 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Burden of Proof, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 28.2% saturation with 31 hits. Analysis detected 134 faulty-reasoning hits from 110 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 24.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠8% (20,204 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 92.30% of the article peer group.

BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP – Police in Bloomfield Township shared a video on Tuesday of eight individuals stealing armfuls of Nike apparel from a Dick’s Sporting Goods in hopes of identifying the suspects. 
The incident occurred around 5:15 p.m. on Sunday, July 19, at the Dick’s in the 2100 block of S Telegraph Road. 
Police say the three women and five men worked together to steal 113 Nike apparel items from the store, worth approximately $10,800. 
Anyone who recognizes any of the individuals involved are asked to reach out to Det. 
Jennifer Lower with Bloomfield Township police at JLower@bloomfieldtwpmi.gov. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.0%Jenny Sherman: 2.4%WDIV: 3.0%Confirmation Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%Jenny Sherman: 3.4%WDIV: 3.0%Availability Heuristic28.2%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 4.2%WDIV: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%Jenny Sherman: 3.4%WDIV: 4.4%Framing Effect28.2%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Jenny Sherman: 9.7%WDIV: 6.0%Negativity Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 2.8%WDIV: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 2.8%WDIV: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.0%Jenny Sherman: 2.4%WDIV: 1.1%Burden of Proof20.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.6%Jenny Sherman: 1.7%WDIV: 1.7%Biased Writer Voice13.6%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jenny Sherman: 0.0%WDIV: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

110 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker7.3%attributed speech102writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJennifer Lower • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jennifer Lower

0%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Jennifer Lower: 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.