Retired statistician who loved long walks killed by falling tree in Queens park during storm 6%

By Nicholas Williams57% Julian Roberts-Grmela0% Leonard Greene72%

6/15/2026, 10:30:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 5 faulty reasoning types, including Hindsight Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Authority, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 29.7% saturation with 199 hits. Analysis detected 367 faulty-reasoning hits from 671 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 22.3% and a BS Rank of 6% (19,360 of 20,531 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.30% of the article peer group.

An 85-year old retired statistician who loved nature and long walks was killed in a freak accident when a sudden storm toppled a tree that crushed him in a Queens park. 
Zenon Reynarowych died on a footpath inside Forest Park about 8:30 p.m. 
June 6 as the fast-moving thunderstorm brought powerful winds that downed hundreds of trees across the city. 
Scores of New Yorkers were outside enjoying beautiful summer weather when the storm suddenly swept across the city, bringing powerful wind gusts of up to 65 mph. 
“If I knew it was going to storm, I would have told him, ‘Zenon, don’t go out,’” said Arlene DiLorenzo, a longtime tenant in the Glendale home Reynarowych owned and lived in near the park. 
“There's plenty of times I used to say ‘Zen, don’t go out, it's gonna storm,’ ‘Don't go out, it's too cold,’ ‘Don't go out.' 
“He was a beautiful soul,” she added. 
“He had a nice smile. 
He was so sweet.” 
Reynarowych had been an adjunct lecturer at Borough of Manhattan Community College, teaching elementary algebra, arithmetic, and mathematics for health sciences until 2023, a college representative said. 
He was also an editor and translator of “Applied Statistics: A Handbook of Techniques.” 
“He had vertigo, felt dizzy, but he was healthy,” DiLorenzo said. 
“I would tell him all the time, ‘Zenon you need to take care of yourself.’ 
He would say he is healthy and strong. 
Nothing is going to happen.” 
DiLorenzo has lived in the victim's building 24 years and considered Reynarowych to be family. 
He was helpful, understanding and supportive as her landlord when she was going through financial problems. 
“He loved me and I loved him  We would have three-, four-hour conversations in the hallway,” she said. 
“Last night I came home and I broke down  He was more like family to me. 
He did so much for us. 
It's sad.” 
Reynarowych was born in Ukraine and came to the United States as a child. 
He had two sons and was separated from his wife, according to neighbors. 
He inherited his home from his parents. 
“He hated what was happening in Ukraine, you know, broke his heart,” DiLorenzo said. 
“That was weighing heavy on him.” 
“He had a lot of stories,” she added. 
“He rode his bike from one country to another when he was younger.” 
He loved to talk and was an avid nature lover. 
“He would always bring home plants and plants and plants  and even dead plants,” DiLorenzo said. 
“He died where he loved most: (in) nature.” 
As a statistician, Reynarowych might have marveled at the odds of the fate that befell him. 
According to one study, the chances of being killed by a falling tree or tree branch are about one in 10 million. 
Neighbor Carolyn Brandlein was left in disbelief. 
“What a way to go  I was stunned,” she said. 
“I couldn't sleep last night just thinking about him just lying there  He was a nice neighbor. 
He had a good heart, was very pleasant.” 
“What are the odds. 
It’s unbelievable,” she added. 
“It was like winning the lottery that no one wants to win.” 
She wasn't surprised Reynarowych was out walking that night. 
“He walked everywhere. 
He had a license but didn't drive,” Brandlein said. 
“It was hot and a nice evening. 
Maybe he just wanted to get fresh air.” 
”He never bragged about himself but he was apparently brilliant,” she added. 
“He was quite well known in his field. 
But I only know that from other people  he never bragged about it  He didn't think the way everyone else thought  He was that unique of a person.” 
The city Parks Department received 1,950 service requests for downed or damaged trees, 1,241 of them in Queens, after the storm. 
The agency sent a forestry crew to inspect and remove the fallen tree that killed Reynarowych. 
With Rebecca White 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Nicholas Williams: 3.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 14.3%Nicholas Williams: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias14.3%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 5.0%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 8.1%newyorkdailynews: 9.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 29.7%Nicholas Williams: 6.2%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Halo Effect29.7%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.3%Nicholas Williams: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority3.3%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.2%Nicholas Williams: 6.6%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion1.2%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 4.1%newyorkdailynews: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 1.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nicholas Williams: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

671 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers54%attributed speech312writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 35 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 24 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 7 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 5 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 11 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 15 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 8 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 19 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 17 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 6 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 14 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 6 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 8 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 17 words • 0.0% coverageArlene DiLorenzo • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 4 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 4 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 3 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 7 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 12 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 8 words • 0.0% coverageCarolyn Brandlein • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Arlene DiLorenzo

79%flagged-word coverage
224 attributed words62% of attributed speech21% 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.