amNewYork42%

Young woman shot inside Brooklyn subway station during robbery attempt: cops 20%

By Dean Moses42%

7/20/2026, 12:58:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 52.3% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 384 faulty-reasoning hits from 243 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,080 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.70% of the article peer group.

A young woman is recovering after being shot in a Brooklyn subway station late on Sunday night during an apparent robbery. 
According to police sources, the 18-year-old victim was waiting for a downtown 2 train at the President St-Medgar Evers College station on the 2/5 line in Crown Heights just before midnight on July 20 when she was approached by the assailant. 
Cops say the man attempted to snatch the woman’s purse, but the woman resisted, leading to a physical struggle. 
Seconds later, authorities said, the suspect pulled out a gun and opened fire, striking the victim in the chest. 
Officers from the 71st Precinct and NYPD Transit District 32 responded to the incident. 
Police rushed the wounded victim to Kings County Hospital, where she was treated for her injury and is expected to survive. 
Meanwhile, the shooter  described by police sources as a man in his 20s with a slim build  fled the station on foot to the street. 
He was last seen wearing a red hat, a black mask and baggy clothing, and riding a two-wheeled vehicle in an unknown direction. 
No arrests have been made, and the investigation remains ongoing. 
Anyone with information regarding this shooting can call Crime Stoppers at 800-577-TIPS (for Spanish, dial 888-57-PISTA). 
You can also submit tips online at crimestoppers.nypdonline.org, or on X (formerly Twitter) @NYPDTips. 
All calls and messages are kept confidential. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 4.3%amNewYork: 3.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.0%amNewYork: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 4.5%amNewYork: 3.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.1%amNewYork: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 15.6%Dean Moses: 5.6%amNewYork: 5.4%Framing Effect15.6%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.1%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 1.0%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.6%Dean Moses: 2.6%amNewYork: 3.7%Optimism Bias8.6%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.3%Dean Moses: 10.5%amNewYork: 7.2%Negativity Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 3.2%amNewYork: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 5.0%amNewYork: 1.0%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: 1.6%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: 1.9%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: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.5%amNewYork: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%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: 52.3%Dean Moses: 9.0%amNewYork: 3.6%Appeal to Authority52.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 1.3%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: 0.0%Dean Moses: 7.5%amNewYork: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.9%Dean Moses: 5.1%amNewYork: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion2.9%This article: 11.1%Dean Moses: 1.3%amNewYork: 1.3%Begging the Question11.1%This article: 7.8%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%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: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 1.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 25.9%Dean Moses: 2.2%amNewYork: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)25.9%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: 2.6%amNewYork: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 3.3%amNewYork: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 5.6%amNewYork: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.2%amNewYork: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%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: 12.3%Dean Moses: 0.7%amNewYork: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.3%

243 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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