Boy, 13, shot during attempted robbery in Washington Park 1%

By Sun-Times Wire7%

8/3/2026, 8:51:03 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 107 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 1% (26,888 of 26,982 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

A 13-year-old boy was shot during an attempted robbery Monday evening in Washington Park on the South Side, according to police. 
The boy was near the back of a home around 7 p.m. in the 5800 block of South Michigan Avenue when he was approached by three people who tried to take his belongings, Chicago police said in a statement.. 
One of the people pulled out a gun and hit the boy before firing, police said. 
The boy was shot in the ankle and taken to Comer Children’s Hospital in good condition. 
No arrests were made, police said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%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: 0.3%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: 1.8%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%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: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 8.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.0%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: 1.2%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: 2.5%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: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%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: 2.2%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: 0.6%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: 0.4%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.7%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: 0.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.9%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.9%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: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.0%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: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 2.5%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: 1.7%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.1%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: 4.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.6%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 1.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 3.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.2%Chicago Sun-Times: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.0%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.1%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sun-Times Wire: 0.5%Chicago Sun-Times: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

107 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers57%attributed speech46writer words
Selected voice

Chicago police

0%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words64% 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.