Gothamist⁠77%

FDNY: 15 injured in Queens school bus crash near LIE and Grand Central Parkway ⁠1%

By Charles Lane⁠36%

4/22/2026, 7:48:00 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 85 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,853 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.80% of the article peer group.

Fifteen people were injured in a school bus crash in Queens on Wednesday afternoon, according to the FDNY. 
The crash happened around 1:26 p.m. near the Long Island Expressway and Grand Central Parkway at 108th Street, fire officials said. 
Six adults and nine children were taken to Elmhurst Hospital with minor injuries, according to the FDNY. 
No further details were immediately available. 
<i>This is a developing story and may be updated.</i> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 2.4%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.8%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 3.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 5.7%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.3%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.6%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 8.9%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.5%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.4%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 4.0%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 2.9%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 3.4%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 2.7%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.6%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.8%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charles Lane: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

85 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers66%attributed speech29writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageFDNY • 18 words • 0.0% coveragefire officials • 21 words • 0.0% coverageFDNY • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

FDNY

0%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words63% 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…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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