Asking Eric: Brother’s theft leaves family confused  New York Daily News 6%

By R. Eric Thomas32%

7/9/2026, 9:00:00 PM

Keywords: Advice

BS Summary: This article contains 34 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 25.9% saturation with 225 hits. Analysis detected 1,451 faulty-reasoning hits from 868 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.6% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,690 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.50% of the article peer group.

Financial elder abuse report and gavel. 
PUBLISHED: July 10, 2026 at 12:00 AM EDT | UPDATED: July 10, 2026 at 6:38 AM EDT 
Dear Eric: I recently discovered that my younger brother (age 72) has been taking advantage of my elderly uncle (age 92), who has dementia. 
My cousin, who thankfully has power of attorney, uncovered checks made out to the brother. 
The brother initially denied the checks, but when confronted with the evidence, he rationalized them by claiming the money was owed to him (which is untrue). 
Interestingly, he behaved similarly with my aging parents 40 years ago. 
At this point, I have severed ties with him, but a part of me would like to hear his explanation. 
I do not think talking with him would yield any satisfactory conclusion. 
Your thoughts? 
 Bewildered Brother 
Dear Brother: I agree with you that you probably won’t get what you want from his explanation. 
Indeed, he’s already offered an explanation  that the money was owed  and that wasn’t satisfactory. 
He has either convinced himself of a story that isn’t true or he’s committed to lying. 
Either way, he hasn’t shown evidence that he’s in a position to help you close the book on this. 
It sounds like what you want is for him to give you a reason for his behavior. 
But even that might not suffice. 
If he has a pattern of this kind of financial elder abuse, it’s doubtful that any reason for his alleged crimes would be good enough. 
Because, frankly, there’s no good reason. 
Even if he’s suffering from a psychological problem, and acting out because of it, knowing this may still not give you the peace you seek. 
At a deeper level, you may be wanting something to prove to you that your brother isn’t who he appears to be. 
He may be many things, some of them quite good. 
But this is clearly a line in the sand for you. 
But until he takes responsibility, apologizes and makes amends, severing contact may be the best option. 
You could consider writing to him to express your dismay and asking for an apology and your cousin can pursue legal avenues for restitution. 
But giving him more space to spin a yarn doesn’t serve you. 
Dear Eric: I am writing about your response to “Befuddled and Injured” who wrote in regarding his response to a salesperson who asked him about what he did to his broken arm. 
I have had too many shoulder surgeries to count and have had my arm in a sling too many days. 
My shoulder surgeon gave me a wonderful response to people, many of them strangers, who asked me what I did with my arm. 
The physician advised responding by saying, “why do you ask?” 
Their response tells you if they care about you or are simply being nosey. 
Then you can choose how to respond. 
It shuts the nosey people up. 
 Asked and Answered 
Dear Asked: I found this very interesting. 
At first, I thought it might be a little brusque, but ultimately, it’s just an innocent question. 
Often people are asking out of curiosity rather than concern, which is fine but doesn’t require a response. 
Dear Eric: In a recent letter from “Angry DIL”, the letter writer was complaining about the cost of keeping her 90-year-old mother-in-law in a senior facility. 
She wrote  During this time, I found that the normally excellent Medicare she has yearly been advised to sign up for has changed. 
Some slick salesperson sold her another plan, and she was cut off from rehab care.” 
This illustrates a common confusion between Medicare and Medicare Advantage plans. 
Medicare is a government program, and covers what it covers, for all participants, at any doctor or hospital or provider anywhere in the U.S. that accepts Medicare. 
There is only one Medicare. 
Medicare Advantage is a program that takes the money that would have been spent on you by Medicare and gives it to a private insurance company that essentially gives you private insurance coverage, often HMO or PPO. 
These plans have different benefits and rates, and, like non-Medicare insurance plans, can require prior authorization or just flat-out deny you coverage. 
Medicare cannot. 
The bottom line is that people need to be clear when they are on Medicare, a government run single-payer system, and when they have signed up for a Medicare Advantage plan, which is run by insurance companies. 
Dear Plan: This is a helpful distinction. 
One additional thought on this letter: the letter writer may want to speak to an elder law attorney or advocate about options available to her mother-in-law. 
As the original letter noted, the daughter-in-law and son are paying quite a lot of money for the mother’s care because the mother doesn’t have the funds. 
But there are other options available for getting her the care she needs with consideration for her financial position. 
(Send questions to R. 
Eric Thomas at eric@askingeric.com or P.O. 
Box 22474, Philadelphia, PA 19110. 
Follow him on Instagram and sign up for his weekly newsletter at rericthomas.com .) 
©2026 Tribune Content Agency, LLC. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%R. Eric Thomas: 3.3%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%R. Eric Thomas: 2.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Availability Heuristic4.3%This article: 6.2%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.2%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias3.9%This article: 9.8%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect9.8%This article: 2.3%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion2.3%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.7%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%R. Eric Thomas: 2.8%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 12.1%R. Eric Thomas: 1.9%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias12.1%This article: 25.9%R. Eric Thomas: 5.8%newyorkdailynews: 9.8%Negativity Bias25.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%R. Eric Thomas: 3.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.6%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.9%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%R. Eric Thomas: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%R. Eric Thomas: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.4%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Ad Hominem1.4%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.6%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority9.6%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 2.3%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%False Dilemma1.8%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%R. Eric Thomas: 4.3%newyorkdailynews: 4.1%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 3.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.3%Red Herring3.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.3%R. Eric Thomas: 3.2%newyorkdailynews: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion2.3%This article: 2.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Begging the Question2.0%This article: 3.0%R. Eric Thomas: 1.4%newyorkdailynews: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.3%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.3%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.2%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.5%R. Eric Thomas: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.6%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%R. Eric Thomas: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Middle Ground1.8%This article: 1.4%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.4%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%R. Eric Thomas: 1.7%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote4.5%This article: 6.5%R. Eric Thomas: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 2.4%R. Eric Thomas: 2.4%newyorkdailynews: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 4.3%R. Eric Thomas: 7.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 3.1%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%R. Eric Thomas: 0.0%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%R. Eric Thomas: 1.5%newyorkdailynews: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.6%

868 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.6%attributed speech863writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageTribune Content Agency, LLC • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
5 attributed words100% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Tribune Content Agency, LLC: 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.