BKReader⁠60%

Mother, Young Daughter in Hospital After SUV Jumps Curb in Bedford-Stuyvesant ⁠2%

By BK Reader Staff⁠41%

8/4/2026, 1:22:30 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 9.5% saturation with 11 hits. Analysis detected 30 faulty-reasoning hits from 116 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 4.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠2% (26,412 of 26,696 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.90% of the article peer group.

A 31-year-old woman is in critical condition and her 4-year-old daughter is in the hospital after police say they were struck by an SUV that jumped a curb in Bedford-Stuyvesant on Sunday night. 
According to authorities, the crash happened around 9:00pm near the intersection of Park and Nostrand avenues. 
Investigators say a Fisker Ocean TLC vehicle driven by a 39-year-old man was attempting to turn from westbound Park Avenue onto Nostrand Avenue when it sideswiped a gray Honda, mounted the curb and struck the woman who was walking with her three children before crashing into a fence. 
More on this from ABC 7 Eyewitness News. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.8%BKReader: 2.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.7%BKReader: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.4%BKReader: 1.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 6.3%BKReader: 8.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.0%BKReader: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 6.4%BKReader: 6.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.1%BKReader: 1.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%BK Reader Staff: 5.2%BKReader: 5.2%Negativity Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.3%BKReader: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.9%BKReader: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.4%BKReader: 0.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.2%BKReader: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.2%BKReader: 2.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.6%BKReader: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.6%BKReader: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.6%BKReader: 3.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.1%BKReader: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 8.3%BKReader: 7.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.3%BKReader: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.6%BKReader: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.8%BKReader: 0.7%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.5%BKReader: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 2.5%BKReader: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.9%BKReader: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 9.5%BK Reader Staff: 2.9%BKReader: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice9.5%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.7%BKReader: 3.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 1.5%BKReader: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%BK Reader Staff: 0.0%BKReader: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%BK Reader Staff: 0.3%BKReader: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.9%

116 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.9%attributed speech108writer words
Selected voice

ABC 7 Eyewitness News

100%flagged-word coverage
8 attributed words100% of attributed speech10% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ABC 7 Eyewitness News: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%ABC 7 Eyewitness News: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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