Crooks carjack Toyota Corolla from women in Brooklyn Lowe's parking lot 10%

By Nicholas Williams0%

4/19/2026, 12:43:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.8% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 217 faulty-reasoning hits from 202 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.6% and a BS Rank of 10% (15,259 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.80% of the article peer group.

Cops are hunting for a group of four men who heartlessly carjacked a vehicle from two women Wednesday at a Lowe's parking lot in Brooklyn. 
A 72-year-old woman, who was sitting on her walker, and a 48-year-old woman were loading their new merchandise into their 2004 Toyota Corolla at the store's parking lot on Avenue U and E. 56th St. in Mill Basin around 4:23 p.m., when one of the men hopped into the Corolla's driver's seat and began to drive off. 
In the process of stealing the vehicle, he struck both women, knocking the younger one to the pavement, cops said. 
Three of the men from the group took off in the Corolla while the fourth individual fled in a black Nissan. 
The value of the stolen goods was about $900. 
The victims sustained minor injuries and refused medical attention at the scene. 
The four suspects range in age from 18 to 20, cops said. 
No arrests have been made. 
Cops released surveillance photos of the suspects, hoping someone would recognize them. 
Anyone with information is asked to call NYPD Crime Stoppers at 1-800-577-TIPS (8477). 
All tips are strictly confidential. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
5.9%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
17.8%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
2.5%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
23.8%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
12.4%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
2.5%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
2.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
15.8%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
17.8%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
6.4%

202 words analyzed.

Analysis

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