2-year-old child found by Milwaukee police reunited with family 3%

By Adrienne Davis6%

8/3/2026, 1:57:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 19.5% saturation with 17 hits. Analysis detected 34 faulty-reasoning hits from 87 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 9.8% and a BS Rank of 3% (25,757 of 26,410 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 97.50% of the article peer group.

A 2-year-old boy who was found by Milwaukee police and needed identification has been reunited with family, according to a Aug. 3 news release from the Milwaukee Police Department. 
Police said the boy was safe and in good health and thanked the public for their assistance. 
Adrienne Davis is a general assignment and breaking news reporter for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 
Got any tips or stories to share? 
Contact Adrienne at amdavis@gannett.com. 
Follow her on X at @AdriReportss. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.3%Journal Sentinel: 1.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.4%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 2.0%Journal Sentinel: 1.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.3%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.3%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.1%Journal Sentinel: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.5%Journal Sentinel: 2.7%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.3%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.5%Adrienne Davis: 0.3%Journal Sentinel: 0.6%Optimism Bias19.5%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.8%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 3.7%Journal Sentinel: 3.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.2%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.4%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.5%Journal Sentinel: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.1%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.1%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.9%Journal Sentinel: 0.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.7%Journal Sentinel: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.3%Journal Sentinel: 2.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.3%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 3.3%Journal Sentinel: 3.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.8%Journal Sentinel: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.5%Journal Sentinel: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.2%Journal Sentinel: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.9%Journal Sentinel: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.1%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 1.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.2%Journal Sentinel: 0.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.8%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.2%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.2%Journal Sentinel: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Adrienne Davis: 0.0%Journal Sentinel: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 19.5%Adrienne Davis: 0.4%Journal Sentinel: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…19.5%

87 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers37%attributed speech55writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words53% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -30.9 ptsWriter: 30.9%Milwaukee Police Department: 0.0%0.0%

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.