amNewYork43%

Teenage girl injured while subway surfing in Queens 57%

By Dean Moses44%

7/22/2026, 2:30:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 41.5% saturation with 100 hits. Analysis detected 727 faulty-reasoning hits from 241 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.9% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,517 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.50% of the article peer group.

A teenage girl was hospitalized Wednesday afternoon after suffering an injury while subway surfing, authorities said. 
According to police sources, cops from Transit District 23 rushed to the Broad Channel subway station at approximately 3:12 p.m. after a report of an injured female. 
Upon their arrival, officers discovered a 16-year-old lying atop a southbound A train. 
Sources familiar with the incident report that she was believed to have been subway surfing and struck a beam. 
She was found to be conscious and alert and was rushed by EMS to Brookdale Hospital. 
She is suspected of having a broken leg and is listed in stable condition. 
On May 22, a 14-year-old boy died after falling from atop a J train as it traveled across the Williamsburg Bridge on the Lower East Side. 
Another surfer, just 18, was critically injured in the same incident. 
That same month the NYPD made a plea for teens to stop the deadly social media trend. 
“That’s really an issue that’s upsetting, because we see the same group of people over and over again, a lot of times, it is a lifestyle, and it’s almost like the influencer type of lifestyle, where they get clout by doing this, and you know they’re going to come back and do it again,” NYPD Chief of Transit Joseph Gulotta said. 
“Before school and after school, they are riding on top of that subway.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.3%Dean Moses: 5.1%amNewYork: 3.4%Confirmation Bias25.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Dean Moses: 4.1%amNewYork: 3.8%Availability Heuristic13.7%This article: 5.4%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.4%amNewYork: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.3%Dean Moses: 6.8%amNewYork: 5.5%Framing Effect25.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 3.7%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 5.8%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 1.2%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 40.2%Dean Moses: 8.6%amNewYork: 7.0%Negativity Bias40.2%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.9%amNewYork: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 4.1%amNewYork: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.1%amNewYork: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.8%Dean Moses: 1.3%amNewYork: 1.1%Recency Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.3%Dean Moses: 6.7%amNewYork: 3.5%Appeal to Authority25.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 41.5%Dean Moses: 5.0%amNewYork: 3.8%Hasty Generalization41.5%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 25.3%Dean Moses: 7.0%amNewYork: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion25.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 25.3%Dean Moses: 2.1%amNewYork: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.8%amNewYork: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.3%Dean Moses: 1.8%amNewYork: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.8%amNewYork: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.3%Dean Moses: 5.5%amNewYork: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice25.3%This article: 5.4%Dean Moses: 1.2%amNewYork: 1.6%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

241 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker31%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Gulotta • 61 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph Gulotta • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joseph Gulotta

100%flagged-word coverage
74 attributed words100% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Biased Writer Voice+82.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joseph Gulotta: 82.4%82.4%Indoctrination+17.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Joseph Gulotta: 17.6%17.6%

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.