Your guide to the wonderful world of L.A. French fries 42%

By Stephanie Breijo70% Danielle Dorsey0% Jenn Harris0% Lucas Kwan Peterson0%

10/20/2023, 10:00:55 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 25.5% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 899 faulty-reasoning hits from 416 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.2% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,709 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.10% of the article peer group.

Even if confronted with loaded fries, I’ll do it. 
While still in my car after hitting a drive-through, I will be digging in prematurely at that container, my fingers probing desperately for my starchy prize, past layers of melted cheese, caramelized onions and pickles. 
Reaching into a crinkly, grease-dotted bag of French fries elicits a specific type of joy. 
Like those claw machines at arcades, your hand roots around blindly, searching for that perfect specimen. 
For me, it’s long and thin with crispy golden edges, a fluffy center and coated in salt. 
We are lovers of French fries in Los Angeles, and as our team has found below, many of our favorite restaurants and chefs take them quite seriously. 
Give the name, you might assume that the dish at hand was invented in France, but Belgium argues that their history began in the Meuse Valley in the 1680s, when residents would substitute fried potatoes for fish during the winters when the river froze over. 
Though that origin story has been disputed, UNESCO added the dish to Belgium’s list of cultural treasures in 2017. 
The U.S. has no stakes in its creation, but French fries nevertheless rose to become a popular side dish for meals that range from casual to fine dining. 
There’s record of fries being served for President Thomas Jefferson at a White House dinner in 1802, and by the 1940s, French fries were commercialized and sold frozen, a boon to the then-developing industry of fast-food chains and fast-casual diners, to which Los Angeles was a breeding ground. 
Within this sector of potato-derived dishes, there’s a whole world to explore  steak fries, curly fries, waffle fries, shoestring, crinkle cut, wedges, tater tots, poutine and so much more. 
Everyone has a differing opinion on the ideal fry consistency: Should they be crispy or soft? 
Fat or skinny? 
Do frozen fries achieve better crispness than potatoes that are chopped fresh? 
No matter your preference, you’re guaranteed to find your perfect fry in L.A. 
Here, in addition to fries hand-cut from local artisan potatoes, you can expect a range of toppings that reflect a global assortment of cuisines. 
On this list, you’ll find 17 of the best, most indulgent fries in Los Angeles, including options loaded with Wagyu shawarma, pastrami, chicken tikka, carne asada and more, as well as simply seasoned options that stand on their own. 
And no, you don’t have to share.  <i>Danielle Dorsey</i> 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Stephanie Breijo: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias10.8%This article: 18.0%Stephanie Breijo: 8.1%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic18.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Stephanie Breijo: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 4.8%Stephanie Breijo: 2.1%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Stephanie Breijo: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Stephanie Breijo: 2.7%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Stephanie Breijo: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Stephanie Breijo: 11.2%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect13.9%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.4%Stephanie Breijo: 6.4%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority20.4%This article: 4.6%Stephanie Breijo: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Stephanie Breijo: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.4%Stephanie Breijo: 2.5%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon9.4%This article: 14.4%Stephanie Breijo: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion14.4%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.5%Stephanie Breijo: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.5%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Stephanie Breijo: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.5%Stephanie Breijo: 4.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal11.5%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.4%Stephanie Breijo: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.4%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.2%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.4%Stephanie Breijo: 0.5%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote2.4%This article: 6.5%Stephanie Breijo: 0.4%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection6.5%This article: 18.0%Stephanie Breijo: 12.8%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice18.0%This article: 2.2%Stephanie Breijo: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stephanie Breijo: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%Stephanie Breijo: 14.6%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…25.5%

416 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers7.0%attributed speech387writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageUNESCO • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageDanielle Dorsey • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

UNESCO

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words66% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -27.4 ptsWriter: 27.4%UNESCO: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.4 ptsWriter: 19.4%UNESCO: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%UNESCO: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%UNESCO: 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.