Brooklyn woman fatally shot in neck, boyfriend sought for questioning ⁠31%

By Thomas Tracy⁠41%

7/1/2026, 11:54:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 70.5% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 287 faulty-reasoning hits from 122 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41% and a BS Rank of ⁠31% (14,070 of 20,372 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 69.10% of the article peer group.

A 24-year-old woman was fatally shot in the neck inside her Brooklyn apartment and cops are looking to question her boyfriend, NYPD officials said Wednesday. 
Tatiana Pettus was murdered in her home on Foster Ave. near E. 29th St. in Flatbush about 11:30 p.m. 
Tuesday, police said. 
Neighbors heard an argument and called 911. 
Medics rushed Pettus to Kings County Hospital, but she didn’t survive. 
Investigators believe Pettus was shot during a fight with her boyfriend, police sources said. 
Cops have identified the boyfriend and are actively looking for him. 
No arrests have been made. 
Cops were scouring the area looking for surveillance footage that could help them track the shooter’s escape. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.5%Thomas Tracy: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Thomas Tracy: 3.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic19.7%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Thomas Tracy: 6.6%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect17.2%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.1%Thomas Tracy: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Thomas Tracy: 11.0%newyorkdailynews: 9.7%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 4.0%newyorkdailynews: 4.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect15.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 70.5%Thomas Tracy: 3.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority70.5%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 3.0%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 7.7%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 2.2%newyorkdailynews: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 62.3%Thomas Tracy: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote62.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.4%Thomas Tracy: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice16.4%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

122 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.