A Restaurant in LA Charges $1 10%

By Sayantan47%

7/13/2026, 5:35:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Out-Group Homogeneity Bias, and Negativity Bias, with False Dilemma as the most egregious example at 10.6% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 487 faulty-reasoning hits from 633 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 26.5% and a BS Rank of 10% (19,835 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 90.60% of the article peer group.

A video originally posted on Facebook by Chefclub Network and reshared on X by @Steeler4ever7, showed a chef recreating a $1,000 tomahawk steak recipe he saw at a restaurant in Los Angeles. 
“A little time off, not too long ago, I went to visit some buddies down in LA and they took me to this restaurant where they use awesome quality pieces of meat and they give you an awesome experience,” he said. 
“The price tag is outstanding, but wow, was it good.” 
He began by preparing the tomahawk with roasted garlic and fajita seasoning before opening the cut to add a filling. 
“Now what they did is give us an option of whether we wanted veggies or other items on the inside. 
We went for the veggies,” he said. 
I bought a tomahawk steak once for $75 at a restaurant. 
Been if I was LeBron I am not paying $1k for a steak. 
That’s absolutely crazy. 
Good or not I can but so much with $1k vs than a meal. pic.twitter.com/9FBOj67pxo 
- SteelerNation (@Steeler4ever7) July 13, 2026 
After searing the steak, the chef breaded it using flour, egg wash, and panko in a double coating before frying it in hot oil. 
“It is heavy, that’s a big boy right there, it’s not just about ten pounds,” he said while lowering the steak into the oil. 
The chef then cut the fried steak into pieces, serving it on tortillas with fajita seasoning, guacamole salsa, cilantro, and lime. 
He ended the video by noting that the dish served six people at the restaurant with food left over. 
“It wasn’t a waste and it was great, it was delicious,” he said, estimating that home cooks could recreate the dish for roughly seventy-five dollars in ingredients plus around thirty dollars more for the tortillas and toppings. 
The @Steeler4ever7 account shared the clip on X with a personal comparison to a steak purchase of their own. 
“I bought a tomahawk steak once for $75 at a restaurant,” the account wrote. 
“Been if I was LeBron I am not paying $1k for a steak. 
That’s absolutely crazy,” the account wrote, arguing that a thousand dollars could buy considerably more food elsewhere. 
Reactions to the video ranged from culinary critique to debate on the massive price tag . 
One commenter wrote, “It’s called so because it hits like a Tomahawk into your wallet.” 
So funny listening to poor people talk about money. 
They think it has value. 
They cant contemplate having the kind of money where 1k is the same as free. 
- Andrew Tate (@Cobratate) July 13, 2026 
Andrew Tate, a social media figure who has faced criminal charges in Romania, commented on the post, arguing that the prices seem different to the rich. 
“So funny listening to poor people talk about money. 
They think it has value. 
They can’t contemplate having the kind of money where 1k is the same as free,” Tate wrote. 
Other commenters focused on the cooking process itself rather than the price debate. 
One wrote, “That is lots of work to ruin a steak. 
Go buy fajita meat if you want a fajita.” 
The Daily Dot was unable to independently verify the exact price or location of the original restaurant dish described in the video. 
The details above reflect the video as shared on X by @Steeler4ever7. 
The identity of the chef depicted in the video has not been confirmed. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post A Restaurant in LA Charges $1,000 for a Tomahawk Steak Taco  a Chef Went Home and Made It for $75  Then Andrew Tate Showed Up in the Comments appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sayantan: 6.9%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Sayantan: 1.4%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 6.4%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 3.2%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Sayantan: 3.6%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 5.1%Sayantan: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.1%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.9%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Sayantan: 11.8%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Sayantan: 1.3%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Sayantan: 2.9%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 9.5%Sayantan: 1.5%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias9.5%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Sayantan: 1.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem2.8%This article: 1.6%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man1.6%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 3.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 10.6%Sayantan: 2.2%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma10.6%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Sayantan: 16.4%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 1.1%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 4.7%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 2.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 5.1%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.9%Sayantan: 14.3%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.7%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 2.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 7.9%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 6.5%Sayantan: 4.0%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 2.1%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.4%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sayantan: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Sayantan: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

633 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers25%attributed speech474writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 11 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 13 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 3 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 15 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 14 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 13 words • 0.0% coverage@Steeler4ever7 • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 9 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 5 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Tate • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrew Tate

90%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words42% of attributed speech24% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Quote-first Misdirection+6.7 ptsWriter: 6.8%Andrew Tate: 13.4%13.4%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Andrew Tate: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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