Man, 29, fatally shot in head during quarrel with 2 men in Bronx restaurant basement 25%

By Thomas Tracy41%

7/16/2026, 12:38:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 80.3% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 440 faulty-reasoning hits from 157 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.6% and a BS Rank of 25% (15,381 of 20,370 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.50% of the article peer group.

A 29-year-old man was fatally shot in the head during an argument with two men inside the basement of a Bronx restaurant early Thursday, police said. 
The victim was killed in the basement of M Lounge Restaurant on Jerome Ave. near E. 184th St. in Fordham about 4:30 a.m., cops said. 
His name was not immediately released. 
He was found dead outside the restaurant by responding officers. 
It was not clear if he had stumbled out of the building after being shot or if his killers dumped him on the sidewalk, cops said. 
One suspect was wearing all black and black sunglasses, while the other was wearing a green shirt with white lettering and black-and- white sneakers, cops said. 
Cops are scouring the area for surveillance footage in an effort to determine the identity of the suspects and where they fled to. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.6%Thomas Tracy: 2.7%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Confirmation Bias16.6%This article: 16.6%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 0.8%Anchoring Bias16.6%This article: 33.1%Thomas Tracy: 3.8%newyorkdailynews: 3.3%Availability Heuristic33.1%This article: 16.6%Thomas Tracy: 1.2%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic16.6%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: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 6.6%newyorkdailynews: 6.1%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.3%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.6%newyorkdailynews: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.1%newyorkdailynews: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.6%Thomas Tracy: 1.6%newyorkdailynews: 2.8%Optimism Bias14.6%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 0.8%newyorkdailynews: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 55.4%Thomas Tracy: 11.0%newyorkdailynews: 9.7%Negativity Bias55.4%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: 15.9%Thomas Tracy: 0.4%newyorkdailynews: 0.4%Primacy Effect15.9%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: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 3.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 80.3%Thomas Tracy: 2.5%newyorkdailynews: 2.1%Unattributed Quote80.3%This article: 0.0%Thomas Tracy: 1.1%newyorkdailynews: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.6%Thomas Tracy: 4.8%newyorkdailynews: 6.8%Biased Writer Voice16.6%This article: 14.6%Thomas Tracy: 1.0%newyorkdailynews: 3.9%Indoctrination14.6%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%

157 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.