‘To See How Easily People Are Parted With Their Money’: Erewhon’s $12 Water and $30 Ice Go Viral 43%

By Reni51%

7/15/2026, 5:14:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Negativity Bias, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 24.2% saturation with 140 hits. Analysis detected 1,239 faulty-reasoning hits from 578 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.7% and a BS Rank of 43% (12,494 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.10% of the article peer group.

Erewhon’s $12 Sacred Water has drawn widespread attemtion with its cost for water. 
Many expressed disbelief at the cost of an essential item. 
With that in mind, a TikToker (like many) decided to pay a visit to find out if the rumors were true. 
@robynkam03 shared her experience with followers on TikTok after personally visiting the viral luxury grocery store in Santa Monica, Los Angeles. 
The woman recorded herself placing the order for the beverage at a kiosk. 
The drink, listed as “Sacred Water by Jolie,” is priced at $12, according to the kiosk shown in the video. 
Ingredients like coconut water, raw honey, and coconut milk were also included in the water. 
@robynkam03 1 glass of regular water for $12!!! 
@Erewhon #erewhon #erewhonmarket #losangeles #la #santamonica 
 Comedy Corridor  Finley Reed 
After making her selection, she added the glass of water to the cart and zoomed in on the price, proving rumors to be true. 
The video had drawn significant attention on TikTok as of publication. 
Many of her followers commented on the discovery and shared their opinions in the comment section of the post. 
An individual claimed that the luxury grocery store was part of a social experiment. 
They mentioned, “(It’s) To see how easily people are parted with their money for status.” 
Others were shocked to learn about the other ingredients in the drink. 
They also thanked the influencer for the clarification. 
Erewhon’s $12 Sacred Water Isn’t The Only Item Sparking a Buzz… 
@WallStreetApes shared the woman’s experience on their X account and highlighted the allegedly controversial prices of some other items sold by Erewhon’s in the caption. 
The verified account cited the luxury establishment’s charge for ice. 
According to Erewhon’s official website , the Cocktail Ice balls sold in a pack cost $29.99, which is the same cost as the X account mentioned in the caption. 
While the spherical ice was sold at almost $30, the cubes were priced at $16. 
Other items highlighted by the account included fruit cups, Japanese strawberries, and Smoothies. 
All of which were priced between $9 to $21 or more. 
The video had drawn more than 173,000 views on X as of publication. 
The rumors are true, if you walk into Erewhon in Los Angeles you can buy a $12 glass of water 
For those that don’t know Erewhon is a premium grocery store that has some of the most outrageously overpriced items you will ever see, even a smoothie can run $22 
They also have $19… pic.twitter.com/PcnpO83OIG 
- Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) July 14, 2026 
Some X users called the store “overrated,” while others questioned whether the prices reflected value or simply status. 
An individual used an example of the cost of strawberries to explain it. 
They said, “I’ve seen those (Japanese) strawberries at my grocery store, they look good, but I’m not paying almost $20 for strawberries when the ones right next to them are $3.99.” 
Other influencers on social media continue to share their findings and experiences after visiting the viral organic store. 
The store’s prices are listed on its official website. 
Sign up to receive the Daily Dot’s Internet Insider newsletter for urgent news from the frontline of online. 
The post ‘To See How Easily People Are Parted With Their Money’: Erewhon’s $12 Water and $30 Ice Go Viral appeared first on The Daily Dot . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.9%Reni: 4.0%dailydot.com: 4.3%Confirmation Bias18.9%This article: 6.2%Reni: 1.0%dailydot.com: 0.9%Anchoring Bias6.2%This article: 8.7%Reni: 4.2%dailydot.com: 4.2%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.5%Reni: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.7%dailydot.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Reni: 5.0%dailydot.com: 4.9%Framing Effect6.4%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.8%dailydot.com: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.2%Reni: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.4%dailydot.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Reni: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.2%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.6%dailydot.com: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Reni: 8.3%dailydot.com: 8.7%Negativity Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.0%dailydot.com: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 2.0%dailydot.com: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Reni: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.5%In-Group Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Reni: 3.8%dailydot.com: 2.4%Halo Effect5.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Reni: 0.9%dailydot.com: 0.7%Recency Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.3%dailydot.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.9%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.6%dailydot.com: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Reni: 1.1%dailydot.com: 1.9%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 3.5%Reni: 1.7%dailydot.com: 2.2%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 2.4%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Slippery Slope2.4%This article: 5.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Circular Reasoning5.0%This article: 17.0%Reni: 7.8%dailydot.com: 8.9%Hasty Generalization17.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 14.4%Reni: 4.2%dailydot.com: 2.4%Bandwagon14.4%This article: 14.9%Reni: 10.6%dailydot.com: 7.1%Appeal to Emotion14.9%This article: 10.2%Reni: 1.2%dailydot.com: 0.9%Begging the Question10.2%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.2%dailydot.com: 1.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 24.2%Reni: 9.9%dailydot.com: 7.4%Anecdotal24.2%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.7%Reni: 1.4%dailydot.com: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.7%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Reni: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.3%Middle Ground3.1%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.5%dailydot.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.1%dailydot.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.7%Reni: 3.1%dailydot.com: 5.1%Unattributed Quote10.7%This article: 1.9%Reni: 3.4%dailydot.com: 3.4%Quote-first Misdirection1.9%This article: 1.4%Reni: 3.6%dailydot.com: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice1.4%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.8%dailydot.com: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.0%dailydot.com: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Reni: 0.2%dailydot.com: 0.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Reni: 2.1%dailydot.com: 1.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.1%

578 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers14%attributed speech499writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coveragerobynkam03 • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coveragerobynkam03 • 8 words • 100.0% coverageErewhon • 6 words • 0.0% coverageFinley Reed • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWallStreetApes • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWallStreetApes • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWallStreetApes • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

WallStreetApes

79%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words48% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Unattributed Quote+72.5 ptsWriter: 6.4%WallStreetApes: 78.9%78.9%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%WallStreetApes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%WallStreetApes: 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.