Questions remain after toddler survives 5-story fall from New York building 33%

By Kerry Burke34% Colin Mixson62% Emma Seiwell50%

7/20/2026, 1:33:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 19.5% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 916 faulty-reasoning hits from 543 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42% and a BS Rank of 33% (13,665 of 20,368 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.10% of the article peer group.

A 1-year-old boy survived a five-story drop from the window of a Bronx apartment building to the concrete pavement below as police investigate what led to the fall, cops said Saturday. 
Cops initially took one person into custody for the incident at the scene, but he was later released without charges, officials said. 
The toddler plummeted from the rear window of the building on Oak Terrace near Beekman Ave. in Mott Haven around 6:40 p.m. 
Friday, according to law enforcement. 
A third-floor resident was sitting on his couch watching TV with his pit bull, Cain, when the toddler fell into the courtyard. 
“I saw the shadow as he came down and I heard the sound, ‘Boom!’” 
the resident, who would only identify himself as Emmanuel, said. 
“It was a sound like a car crash, like a body hits the wall. 
My dog jumped up on the window sill, and that’s when I looked up and saw.” 
“I thought it was garbage at first that someone threw out the window. 
People do that sometimes,” Emmanuel, 53, added. 
Upon spotting the boy lying in an alley they couldn’t access, neighbors frantically began calling 911. 
“I heard the baby crying and crying before anybody got there,” said Wilma Roman, who lives on the building’s ground floor. 
“I thought, ‘Where are the mother and father?’ 
And then the firefighters banged on my door. 
I looked out and I saw the baby lying there on the floor crying but not moving.” 
When Roman, 64, peered out her window she spotted the boy lying on his back, one leg crossed over the other, on the concrete a few feet away. 
The tot only had on a small T-shirt and a diaper. 
Responding firefighters struggled to get into the alley which was locked up and attempted to get to the boy through tenants’ windows. 
“They were trying to get through my windows, but my (window) gates were locked,” Roman said. 
“They said, ‘There’s a baby out there and we can’t reach him!’ 
They were desperate. 
I started crying. 
I thought, ‘If that baby makes it, it’s a miracle.’” 
A quick-thinking female firefighter managed to jump down into the alley from another window, then raced to open up the rear gate, letting medics rush in to work on the boy before they drove the child off in an ambulance. 
“When they brought him out, his cries started to die down,” Roman recalled. 
“I thought, ‘Don’t tell me, this baby isn’t going to make it.’” 
A woman who lives across the street came outside after hearing sirens to find a man pacing on the sidewalk outside the building, she said. 
“He was pacing back and forth,” said the woman, who gave her name as Jane, 35. 
“There were no parents out here showing up. 
This is just heartbreaking.” 
Medics rushed the injured child to Harlem Hospital, where he was listed in stable condition. 
Cops said he suffered “serious injuries,” but is expected to survive. 
It was not immediately clear how the child survived the fall. 
Concrete paving extends roughly 10 feet from the rear of the building to the fenced yard of another property, which contains a tree and other shrubbery. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.1%Kerry Burke: 2.1%Sun Sentinel: 2.6%Confirmation Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.9%Sun Sentinel: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Kerry Burke: 4.1%Sun Sentinel: 2.3%Availability Heuristic17.5%This article: 5.3%Kerry Burke: 0.8%Sun Sentinel: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.6%Sun Sentinel: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.5%Sun Sentinel: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Kerry Burke: 5.6%Sun Sentinel: 3.4%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.4%Sun Sentinel: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.5%Sun Sentinel: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%Kerry Burke: 1.0%Sun Sentinel: 2.1%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 4.1%Kerry Burke: 1.1%Sun Sentinel: 1.2%Pessimism Bias4.1%This article: 13.4%Kerry Burke: 10.1%Sun Sentinel: 8.0%Negativity Bias13.4%This article: 5.3%Kerry Burke: 0.9%Sun Sentinel: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 4.4%Kerry Burke: 1.3%Sun Sentinel: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.4%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.2%Sun Sentinel: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 1.2%Sun Sentinel: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.5%Sun Sentinel: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Kerry Burke: 4.1%Sun Sentinel: 6.7%Halo Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.5%Sun Sentinel: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 1.2%Sun Sentinel: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Kerry Burke: 0.3%Sun Sentinel: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.3%Sun Sentinel: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.5%Kerry Burke: 3.6%Sun Sentinel: 2.8%Appeal to Authority15.5%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.3%Sun Sentinel: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.3%Sun Sentinel: 0.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.8%Kerry Burke: 3.1%Sun Sentinel: 3.2%Hasty Generalization6.8%This article: 7.7%Kerry Burke: 0.4%Sun Sentinel: 0.4%Red Herring7.7%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.6%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.1%Kerry Burke: 9.1%Sun Sentinel: 4.4%Appeal to Emotion15.1%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.4%Sun Sentinel: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 2.2%Sun Sentinel: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.5%Kerry Burke: 0.5%Sun Sentinel: 0.6%Burden of Proof1.5%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.5%Kerry Burke: 4.0%Sun Sentinel: 2.0%Anecdotal19.5%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.7%Kerry Burke: 1.5%Sun Sentinel: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.7%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.9%Kerry Burke: 0.1%Sun Sentinel: 0.0%Special Pleading2.9%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 2.9%Sun Sentinel: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.6%Kerry Burke: 1.2%Sun Sentinel: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 9.4%Kerry Burke: 4.6%Sun Sentinel: 6.7%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.8%Sun Sentinel: 2.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.2%Sun Sentinel: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.0%Sun Sentinel: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kerry Burke: 0.2%Sun Sentinel: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

543 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech328writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageEmmanuel • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageEmmanuel • 14 words • 0.0% coverageEmmanuel • 16 words • 0.0% coverageEmmanuel • 13 words • 0.0% coverageEmmanuel • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWilma Roman • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWilma Roman • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJane • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Emmanuel

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words30% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Quote-first Misdirection+21.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Emmanuel: 21.9%21.9%Biased Writer Voice-15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%Emmanuel: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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