NYPD: Suspect Screamed 'Allahu Akbar' During Upper West Side Stabbings ⁠56%

By Scott McClallen⁠27%

7/23/2026, 9:13:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Representativeness Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 23.3% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 99 faulty-reasoning hits from 103 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (9,447 of 21,188 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.40% of the article peer group.

A 51-year-old man named Raul Morales was arrested today after he allegedly yelled “Allahu Akbar” in separate attacks in New York. 
The victims, an asian male and a Jewish male, went to the hospital and are expected to survive. 
The New York Police Department is determining the motive and evaluating whether the attack is a hate crime or not, according to New York City Police Commissioner Jessica S. 
Tisch. 
While the perpetrator has no known mental health history with the NYPD, the initial investigation suggests that mental health may have been a factor. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.3%Scott McClallen: 2.3%Townhall: 5.2%Confirmation Bias23.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 2.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 20.4%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic20.4%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.3%Townhall: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 7.4%Townhall: 11.3%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Scott McClallen: 8.4%Townhall: 13.5%Negativity Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.9%Townhall: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.9%Townhall: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.9%Townhall: 4.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 3.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.5%Townhall: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Scott McClallen: 0.3%Townhall: 0.6%Primacy Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.6%Townhall: 5.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.4%Townhall: 2.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 4.4%Townhall: 4.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.8%Townhall: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.5%Townhall: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 23.3%Scott McClallen: 2.2%Townhall: 9.1%Hasty Generalization23.3%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.6%Townhall: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 10.3%Townhall: 11.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.1%Townhall: 2.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.4%Townhall: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.7%Townhall: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.2%Townhall: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 1.8%Townhall: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.0%Townhall: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 2.0%Townhall: 3.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.7%Scott McClallen: 3.3%Townhall: 3.0%Quote-first Misdirection9.7%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 5.3%Townhall: 16.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.9%Townhall: 5.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 0.1%Townhall: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 5.4%Townhall: 13.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Scott McClallen: 3.6%Townhall: 5.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

103 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech73writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Police Department • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJessica S. Tisch • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words97% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%New York Police Department: 0.0%0.0%

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.