Woman shot in Austin carjacking 1%

By Sun-Times Wire12%

8/1/2026, 8:44:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 106 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 1% (30,432 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.50% of the article peer group.

A 36-year-old woman was shot during a carjacking early Saturday in Austin, Chicago police said. 
Officers responded to a call of a person shot at about 12:37 a.m. along the 4600 block of West Fifth Avenue, police said. 
The woman was getting out of her car when a man approached, fired shots and demanded access to her vehicle before fleeing, according to police. 
The woman suffered a gunshot wound to the back and was treated at the scene by the Chicago Fire Department personnel, police said. 
She was taken to Mount Sinai Hospital in good condition. 
Area Four Detectives were investigating. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 2.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 9.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 3.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 3.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

106 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers81%attributed speech20writer words
Selected voice

police

0%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words83% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.