Gothamist⁠77%

Queens house fire that killed 4 ruled a homicide, NYPD says no arrests ⁠0%

By David Giambusso⁠0%

3/28/2026, 3:12:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.6% saturation with 59 hits. Analysis detected 408 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

The New York City medical examiner has ruled a fatal Queens house fire a homicide, police said Friday night, and so far no arrests have been made. 
At least four people, including a 3-year-old girl, were killed when the four-alarm fire tore through a three-story brick building in Flushing shortly after noon on March 16. 
More than 230 firefighters responded and placed the blaze under control less than three hours later. 
The girl, whom the NYPD identified Friday as Sihan Yang, was declared dead at the scene along with Chengri Cui, a 50-year-old man who also lived at the home. 
A 61-year-old woman was also found dead and a 63-year-old man was declared dead at a nearby hospital. 
The latter two have not been identified “pending proper family notification” police said Friday night. 
The NYPD said the investigation remains ongoing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 27.5%David Giambusso: 2.1%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias27.5%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 2.8%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%David Giambusso: 4.4%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic18.3%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.3%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 1.0%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.1%David Giambusso: 16.0%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect26.1%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 1.6%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 9.8%David Giambusso: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 6.8%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 3.6%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 38.6%David Giambusso: 14.4%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias38.6%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.4%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 4.2%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 2.5%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%David Giambusso: 0.3%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect19.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%David Giambusso: 2.7%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 1.5%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 30.7%David Giambusso: 5.2%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority30.7%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 1.6%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.3%David Giambusso: 4.8%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization18.3%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 2.3%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 8.8%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.4%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.8%David Giambusso: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof9.8%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 1.6%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.1%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 27.5%David Giambusso: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)27.5%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.7%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 19.0%David Giambusso: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote19.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.6%David Giambusso: 6.9%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice17.6%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 2.2%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Giambusso: 2.4%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers33%attributed speech102writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageNYPD • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coveragepolice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNYPD • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

police

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words29% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.5 ptsWriter: 26.5%police: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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