Tempe’s restaurant week event runs through Sunday. Where to score deals 57%

By Georgann Yara68%

7/20/2026, 1:32:04 PM

Keywords: Events, Summer, Tempe

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 47.7% saturation with 325 hits. Analysis detected 1,066 faulty-reasoning hits from 681 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.9% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,531 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.50% of the article peer group.

If the idea of cooking and heating up the kitchen is unappealing this time of year, a two-week Tempe dining event aims to ease the burden with restaurants offering cool prix fixe menu deals this month. 
From July 12 to 26, Taste in Tempe features 25 eateries offering three-course menus priced from $25 to $55 per person or per couple. 
The participating restaurants span a variety of cuisines and vibes, from laid-back and family-friendly to rooftop chic and white-tablecloth elegance. 
Bar Capri, Filthy Animal, Lucero Rooftop Lounge & Terrace, Ghost Ranch and Night Owl Pizza & Drinks are among the participating restaurants. 
While most are offering the traditional starter, entree and dessert, some present creative takes tailored to their strengths. 
Snakes & Lattes’ $35 menu includes game fees for two, a cocktail, beer or mocktail and a shareable appetizer. 
Hundred Mile Brewing Co. has a beer slushie as one of its dessert options on its $40-per-person lineup. 
“This is their time to shine,” says Cristal Rodriguez, director of marketing at Tempe Tourism, the city’s nonprofit destination marketing organization responsible for the event. 
The concept began last summer as a response to local restaurant owners expressing how difficult it is to survive the slow season. 
July was the month that hit them the hardest, Rodriguez says. 
Restaurants pay nothing to participate. 
They design the menus and let Tempe Tourism do the rest. 
“We’re making it very low lift and as easy as possible,” Rodriguez says. 
Caffe Boa returned this year with a $45-per-person menu that begins with a cocktail or house mocktail as its opening course. 
The idea is to showcase the Italian restaurant’s stellar mocktail program, says co-owner Jessalyn Italiano. 
They're offering a different selection each week to encourage customers to come back and give the others a try. 
Italiano is excited to try the menus at Bar Capri and Alter Ego, the signature restaurant in the Canopy Hilton Tempe Downtown. 
She says restaurants getting the word out to their own customers and encouraging them to try other participating eateries is key to Taste in Tempe succeeding. 
“I like having a summer event or program that we can look forward to every year that’s sustainable,” Italiano says. 
In 2025, Rodriguez says Tempe Tourism’s advertising and marketing efforts for the event generated 48,575 influenced visits to its restaurants. 
While Cocina Chiwas manager, John Pullia, doesn’t expect a measurable economic bump from the restaurant’s first-time participation in the event, he does anticipate a long-term impact from getting first-timers in the door. 
“Anytime you do a tasting menu like this, it helps in some way, shape or form,” Pullia says. 
“It’s an opportunity to connect with the people of Tempe, especially in the summer when it’s quieter.” 
Cocina Chiwas is doing just that by offering a few dishes not on its regular lineup. 
Examples on the $35-per-person menu include the Chile Compones Tacos filled with cheese-stuffed chiles, a vegetarian version of their tostada with mushrooms and the elote quesadilla, a fusion of their popular wood-fired quesadilla and elote appetizers. 
Pullia likes Taste in Tempe's friendly price point, which can make trying multiple restaurants possible. 
“The big thing is having people fall in love with these little hidden gems that they normally wouldn’t try,” Pullia says. 
“The only way to find out if we’re a food destination is to go and try the food.” 
Italiano didn’t feel a huge boost to Caffe Boa’s bottom line last year. 
But that didn’t deter her from participating again. 
Putting her restaurant on people’s radars year-round is a motivator. 
“We hope they can see us as dependable as a place to celebrate, have a good happy hour or listen to some jazz,” Italiano says. 
When customers support a local spot, the impact goes beyond that single meal. 
“It’s not about just going to one restaurant. 
It’s about all of the ingredients and producers that the restaurant sources from,” says Italiano, who uses goods from Crow’s Dairy and Two Wash Ranch. 
“Where you put your money really does matter.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.0%Georgann Yara: 1.7%Phoenix New Times: 1.5%Confirmation Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.9%Georgann Yara: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic2.9%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Georgann Yara: 0.9%Phoenix New Times: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias2.6%This article: 6.0%Georgann Yara: 6.8%Phoenix New Times: 3.5%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 1.2%Georgann Yara: 0.4%Phoenix New Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion1.2%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 20.9%Georgann Yara: 16.1%Phoenix New Times: 2.8%Optimism Bias20.9%This article: 1.9%Georgann Yara: 0.6%Phoenix New Times: 0.8%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 3.2%Georgann Yara: 1.1%Phoenix New Times: 7.0%Negativity Bias3.2%This article: 4.7%Georgann Yara: 1.6%Phoenix New Times: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 1.2%Phoenix New Times: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Georgann Yara: 2.5%Phoenix New Times: 2.7%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.0%Georgann Yara: 4.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.5%Appeal to Authority12.0%This article: 2.6%Georgann Yara: 2.6%Phoenix New Times: 1.1%False Dilemma2.6%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.8%Georgann Yara: 1.3%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.8%This article: 2.6%Georgann Yara: 3.3%Phoenix New Times: 4.3%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Georgann Yara: 7.5%Phoenix New Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.3%Georgann Yara: 2.4%Phoenix New Times: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.7%Georgann Yara: 1.2%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.7%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.1%Georgann Yara: 1.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.4%Anecdotal3.1%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 1.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.3%Georgann Yara: 2.4%Phoenix New Times: 5.6%Biased Writer Voice7.3%This article: 4.8%Georgann Yara: 2.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.0%Indoctrination4.8%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 2.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Georgann Yara: 0.0%Phoenix New Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 47.7%Georgann Yara: 18.3%Phoenix New Times: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…47.7%

681 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers52%attributed speech329writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageCristal Rodriguez • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageCristal Rodriguez • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageCristal Rodriguez • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 26 words • 0.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 20 words • 100.0% coverageCristal Rodriguez • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Pullia • 32 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Pullia • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Pullia • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Pullia • 15 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Pullia • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Pullia • 18 words • 0.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJessalyn Italiano • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Pullia

100%flagged-word coverage
121 attributed words34% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -32.9 ptsWriter: 62.6%John Pullia: 29.8%29.8%Biased Writer Voice+21.0 ptsWriter: 5.5%John Pullia: 26.4%26.4%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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