Police were searching for a man who fired a gun inside a Walmart in Delaware County 4%

By Robert Moran13%

7/31/2026, 5:49:25 PM

Topics: Crime

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Confirmation Bias, and Hindsight Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 23.7% saturation with 32 hits. Analysis detected 116 faulty-reasoning hits from 135 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 10.7% and a BS Rank of 4% (30,634 of 31,898 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 96.00% of the article peer group.

Police on Friday night were searching for a man who fired a gun inside a Walmart in Delaware County. 
Around 7:30 p.m., police responded to a report of shots fired inside the Walmart at 50 N. 
MacDade Blvd. in Glenolden. 
Police said they recovered the gun that was fired, but they did not immediately find a shooting victim at the scene. 
Police initially searched a nearby ShopRite where some witnesses said the shooter ran to, but police did not find the suspect, who was described as wearing an orange sweatshirt and black pants. 
Police said they believed the man was shooting at someone and they were checking with hospitals in the area in case a victim arrived for treatment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.3%Robert Moran: 2.2%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Confirmation Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.2%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.7%Robert Moran: 1.5%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Availability Heuristic23.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 19.3%Robert Moran: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 2.8%Inquirer.com: 3.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 5.1%Inquirer.com: 5.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.9%Inquirer.com: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.9%Inquirer.com: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.6%Inquirer.com: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.2%Inquirer.com: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 1.3%Inquirer.com: 1.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.2%Inquirer.com: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 1.3%Inquirer.com: 2.7%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.4%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 4.9%Inquirer.com: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.2%Inquirer.com: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 1.2%Inquirer.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.3%Inquirer.com: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 1.2%Inquirer.com: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.2%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.7%Robert Moran: 4.5%Inquirer.com: 1.2%Unattributed Quote23.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 1.5%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.7%Inquirer.com: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.5%Inquirer.com: 1.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.1%Inquirer.com: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Moran: 0.0%Inquirer.com: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

135 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.