L.A. TACO⁠85%

We Mapped All 64 TACO MADNESS Competitors, From Palms to Pomona ⁠0%

By Javier Cabral⁠89%

4/7/2026, 7:31:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 108 hits. Analysis detected 561 faulty-reasoning hits from 108 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,191 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Some of you may already know this, but our TACO MADNESS bracket doubles as a foolproof guide to L.A. 
County's best tacos. 
From vegetarian to al pastor, this bracket-turned-guide acts as the great taco treasure hunt to take on yourself or to show your friends and family visiting from out of town. 
Every year, our team fights over which taquerías will compete, and while there may be the occasional missed neighborhood taco shop, we are confident that this guide accurately represents L.A. as the absolute best taco city in the U.S. 
Find the map below and enjoy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 36.1%Javier Cabral: 5.1%L.A. TACO: 3.9%Confirmation Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.9%L.A. TACO: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Javier Cabral: 3.5%L.A. TACO: 4.1%Availability Heuristic17.6%This article: 36.1%Javier Cabral: 1.3%L.A. TACO: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic36.1%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.6%L.A. TACO: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 46.3%Javier Cabral: 3.7%L.A. TACO: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias46.3%This article: 17.6%Javier Cabral: 9.8%L.A. TACO: 11.6%Framing Effect17.6%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.8%L.A. TACO: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.5%L.A. TACO: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.7%L.A. TACO: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 3.9%L.A. TACO: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.3%L.A. TACO: 0.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 8.6%L.A. TACO: 11.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 36.1%Javier Cabral: 2.5%L.A. TACO: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.0%L.A. TACO: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.5%L.A. TACO: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 27.8%Javier Cabral: 9.4%L.A. TACO: 5.0%In-Group Bias27.8%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.9%L.A. TACO: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 27.8%Javier Cabral: 9.2%L.A. TACO: 6.0%Halo Effect27.8%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.9%L.A. TACO: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.3%L.A. TACO: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.1%L.A. TACO: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Javier Cabral: 0.6%L.A. TACO: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.4%L.A. TACO: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.7%L.A. TACO: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.1%L.A. TACO: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 3.3%L.A. TACO: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.6%L.A. TACO: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.9%L.A. TACO: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.0%L.A. TACO: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 36.1%Javier Cabral: 8.5%L.A. TACO: 5.8%Hasty Generalization36.1%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.4%L.A. TACO: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 3.1%L.A. TACO: 1.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 45.4%Javier Cabral: 13.4%L.A. TACO: 10.8%Appeal to Emotion45.4%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.0%L.A. TACO: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 2.0%L.A. TACO: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.3%L.A. TACO: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.2%L.A. TACO: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.8%L.A. TACO: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.2%L.A. TACO: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 4.4%L.A. TACO: 5.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 36.1%Javier Cabral: 0.5%L.A. TACO: 0.2%No True Scotsman36.1%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.9%L.A. TACO: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.0%L.A. TACO: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.1%L.A. TACO: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.3%L.A. TACO: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.3%L.A. TACO: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.0%L.A. TACO: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.1%L.A. TACO: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.5%L.A. TACO: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 100.0%Javier Cabral: 15.1%L.A. TACO: 8.7%Biased Writer Voice100.0%This article: 17.6%Javier Cabral: 1.6%L.A. TACO: 2.0%Indoctrination17.6%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 1.6%L.A. TACO: 3.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Javier Cabral: 0.0%L.A. TACO: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 33.3%Javier Cabral: 2.4%L.A. TACO: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…33.3%

108 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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