Gothamist⁠77%

16-year-old boy dies after fall near Bushwick Inlet Park, police say ⁠0%

By Louis C. Hochman⁠78%

3/20/2026, 5:26:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 0 faulty reasoning types, including no named faulty reasoning patterns yet, with no single egregious example has been isolated yet. Analysis detected 0 faulty-reasoning hits from 113 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Police say a 16-year-old boy died Friday after falling from an elevated position near Bushwick Inlet Park. 
The NYPD said officers responded to a 911 call at North 10 Street and Kent Avenue around 1:15 p.m., and found the teen unconscious and unresponsive. 
EMS took the boy to Bellevue hospital in critical condition, and he was pronounced dead, police said. 
There had been no arrests as of Friday evening, and the investigation remainder under investigation, police said. 
They said the city's medical examiner office would determine the boy's cause of death. 
Police have not yet disclosed the boy's identity, pending family notification. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 3.8%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.9%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 5.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.5%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 11.2%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 3.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 4.8%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 14.1%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 3.0%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.4%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.0%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.7%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.1%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 5.3%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.8%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 3.4%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.0%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.2%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 9.3%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.0%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.0%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 1.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.9%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.4%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.8%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 2.7%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 3.5%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Louis C. Hochman: 0.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

113 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers90%attributed speech11writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
police • 11 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageThe NYPD • 26 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 17 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 17 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

police

0%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words75% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.