5.5 magnitude earthquake hits Peru’s Andes region and kills at least 6 people ⁠42%

By Associated Press⁠60%

7/19/2026, 10:32:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.2% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 514 faulty-reasoning hits from 245 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (12,455 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.80% of the article peer group.

LIMA, Peru (AP) — A 5.5 magnitude earthquake shook the Andes region of Peru, killing at least six people, authorities said Sunday. 
More than 30 people were injured and 300 displaced. 
The U.S. 
Geological Survey reported the quake struck on Saturday at 9:24 p.m., with its epicenter located 2 kilometers (1.24 miles) west-southwest of the city of Sicaya in Huancayo province. 
It was 10 kilometers (6.21 miles) deep. 
Peru’s National Civil Defense Institute said in a statement the total number of missing is still unknown. 
Several buildings collapsed or suffered structural damage, including the local church and convent. 
Luis Vásquez, head of the local civil defense office, told journalists that the use of rustic adobe materials in construction in that Andean area “has contributed to the greater impact and damage.” 
Earthquakes are frequent in Peru, which is located in the so-called Pacific “Ring of Fire.” 
Images broadcast by local media captured the anguish of victims’ relatives in one of the hardest-hit areas, the agricultural region of Chongo Bajo, where residents huddled under blankets outside severely damaged homes. 
Animals were also seen under the rubble. 
“My home has been destroyed,” Hermenegilda Guamalato told a local radio station as she sought a place to stay with her three children in the neighboring province of Huayucachi. 
In 2007, a magnitude 7.9 earthquake struck the province of Pisco in the Ica region, killing nearly 600 people. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.2%WSVN: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WSVN: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Associated Press: 3.1%WSVN: 3.1%Availability Heuristic13.1%This article: 6.1%Associated Press: 0.8%WSVN: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WSVN: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%WSVN: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 7.2%WSVN: 7.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WSVN: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%WSVN: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WSVN: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.1%WSVN: 2.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.8%Associated Press: 1.5%WSVN: 2.5%Pessimism Bias18.8%This article: 30.2%Associated Press: 8.8%WSVN: 12.5%Negativity Bias30.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.0%WSVN: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Associated Press: 0.8%WSVN: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error13.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.4%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%WSVN: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WSVN: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.4%WSVN: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WSVN: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.8%Associated Press: 1.4%WSVN: 1.5%Recency Bias7.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%WSVN: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WSVN: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WSVN: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.4%Associated Press: 3.4%WSVN: 4.1%Appeal to Authority11.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WSVN: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WSVN: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WSVN: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.7%WSVN: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WSVN: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.9%Associated Press: 4.7%WSVN: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion24.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WSVN: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.1%Associated Press: 2.3%WSVN: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WSVN: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 6.1%Associated Press: 0.1%WSVN: 0.1%Appeal to Nature6.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WSVN: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.8%Associated Press: 1.8%WSVN: 3.1%Anecdotal11.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WSVN: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.2%WSVN: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WSVN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WSVN: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WSVN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WSVN: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.1%Associated Press: 1.3%WSVN: 2.2%Unattributed Quote13.1%This article: 13.1%Associated Press: 1.2%WSVN: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection13.1%This article: 27.3%Associated Press: 3.0%WSVN: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice27.3%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%WSVN: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WSVN: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WSVN: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%WSVN: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

245 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coveragePeru’s National Civil Defense Institute • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLuis Vásquez • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageHermenegilda Guamalato • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Luis Vásquez

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words41% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Luis Vásquez: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-40.1 ptsWriter: 40.1%Luis Vásquez: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-19.2 ptsWriter: 19.2%Luis Vásquez: 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.