WAMU⁠15%

ICE agents killed three people during recent operations. What do we know? ⁠65%

7/16/2026, 1:17:14 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 56 hits. Analysis detected 396 faulty-reasoning hits from 235 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,200 of 20,447 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.80% of the article peer group.

Last week, an ICE agent shot and killed 52-year-old Lorenzo Salgado Araujo during a traffic stop in Houston. 
He was on his way to work and not the target of the ICE operation he encountered. 
No photos or video of the traffic stop have been released. 
On Monday, ICE agents shot and killed 25-year-old Johan Sebastian Duran Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine. 
Immigration advocates say Guerrero, a Colombian national, was authorized to work in the U.S. 
He was also not the target of ICE agents at the scene. 
On Tuesday, this week near St. 
Augustine, Florida, ICE agents approached a car with four men inside who then fled. 
One was hit and killed by a truck. 
The Department of Homeland Security says the 28-year-old victim was a Mexican national. 
Anti-ICE protests erupted in Maine on Wednesday. 
The Associated Press spoke to some of them. 
And President Donald Trump posted the statement “We CANNOT give up one of ICE’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools, THE TRAFFIC STOP!” 
to his social media. 
The shootings come as ICE arrests have surged. 
ICE reported 10,000 arrests in five days alone at the end of June. 
In December, the month with the highest number of arrests under the Trump administration the agency arrested around 1,200 people per day. 
What do we know? 
And what does it mean? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.5%WAMU: 2.3%Confirmation Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.4%WAMU: 3.1%Availability Heuristic20.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%WAMU: 4.4%Framing Effect16.2%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.8%WAMU: 7.7%Negativity Bias23.8%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%WAMU: 1.2%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 9.4%WAMU: 0.5%Primacy Effect9.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 21.7%WAMU: 2.9%Appeal to Authority21.7%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.4%WAMU: 4.7%Hasty Generalization9.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.4%WAMU: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%WAMU: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.2%WAMU: 1.3%Unattributed Quote10.2%This article: 10.2%WAMU: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection10.2%This article: 10.2%WAMU: 2.8%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 10.2%WAMU: 1.0%Indoctrination10.2%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

235 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers31%attributed speech163writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageImmigration advocates • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageICE • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words33% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%

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.