amNewYork45%

Man slashed in Brooklyn subway station after suspect questions his tattoo: sources 9%

By Dean Moses54%

8/2/2026, 5:46:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Confirmation Bias, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 46 hits. Analysis detected 281 faulty-reasoning hits from 187 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 18.4% and a BS Rank of 9% (27,898 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

Authorities are searching for a man after he slashed a straphanger with a knife in a Brooklyn subway station on Friday. 
According to police sources, the incident occurred at approximately 9:09 p.m. on July 31 at the Pacific Street subway station. 
A 30-year-old man was waiting on the southbound D train platform when he was approached by a stranger and questioned over a tattoo on his arm. 
Sources say the suspect quizzed the man on whether he was in a gang before he brandished a knife and slashed him across his right hand. 
The victim was taken by EMS to NewYork-Presbyterian Brooklyn Methodist Hospital, where he was treated for his injury. 
Meanwhile, the suspect fled the station and was last seen wearing a white T-shirt and blue jeans. 
No arrests have been made, and the investigation remains ongoing. 
Anyone with information regarding this incident 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: 13.9%Dean Moses: 4.5%amNewYork: 3.0%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Dean Moses: 4.1%amNewYork: 2.8%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 13.9%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic13.9%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.9%amNewYork: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Dean Moses: 6.1%amNewYork: 4.7%Framing Effect20.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Dean Moses: 1.2%amNewYork: 3.8%Optimism Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.6%amNewYork: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Dean Moses: 9.9%amNewYork: 5.4%Negativity Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.3%amNewYork: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.6%amNewYork: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.4%amNewYork: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.0%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: 1.6%amNewYork: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%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: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.7%Dean Moses: 3.4%amNewYork: 2.7%Appeal to Authority10.7%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.4%amNewYork: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.6%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: 5.7%amNewYork: 3.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.7%Dean Moses: 7.2%amNewYork: 5.2%Appeal to Emotion3.7%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.7%amNewYork: 0.4%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: 0.1%amNewYork: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 4.1%amNewYork: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.9%Dean Moses: 1.9%amNewYork: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.9%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: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.6%Dean Moses: 2.5%amNewYork: 1.0%Unattributed Quote24.6%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.9%amNewYork: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.9%Dean Moses: 6.0%amNewYork: 3.7%Biased Writer Voice13.9%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.5%amNewYork: 1.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.0%amNewYork: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.0%

187 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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