404 Media48%

What Does Olive Garden’s Never-Ending Pasta Have to Do With Voting Rights? 63%

By Samantha Cole61%

7/21/2026, 10:17:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Sunk Cost Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 48.3% saturation with 116 hits. Analysis detected 759 faulty-reasoning hits from 240 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.1% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,126 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.90% of the article peer group.

When I was 20 years old, I went to my hometown Olive Garden with one goal in mind: For less than $10, I would attempt to eat so much bottomless pasta in their so-called Never-Ending Pasta deal that either the staff would be forced to stop me and my idiot friends from putting the franchise into the red, or I would die trying. 
In either scenario, I planned to get a serious bang for my buck. 
No one asked to see my ID. 
I ate a ton of linguine alfredo (probably four bowls  not heroic and definitely not financially devastating to Olive Garden), shamefully tapped the mat, and went back to my friends’ place to smoke too much weed. 
The next morning, on the four hour drive back to my college town, I started feeling a burning, cramping pain in my abdomen. 
By that evening, I was curled up in pain and could barely walk. 
I drove myself to the emergency room, confessed my sins, and learned I had a handful of gallstones that the buckets of creamy, fatty, carby pasta had aggravated into an attack. 
Should I have been carded before carrying out such a reckless crime against my own wellbeing? 
Maybe. 
But this week, right-wing groups and Republicans have started repeating a lie that Olive Garden’s promotional deals are more secure than the country’s elections. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 3.0%404 Media: 3.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 4.4%404 Media: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.5%404 Media: 1.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.2%404 Media: 2.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 4.6%404 Media: 5.6%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.3%404 Media: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.4%404 Media: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 31.7%Samantha Cole: 0.5%404 Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect31.7%This article: 26.3%Samantha Cole: 5.3%404 Media: 2.8%Optimism Bias26.3%This article: 5.4%Samantha Cole: 2.5%404 Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias5.4%This article: 25.4%Samantha Cole: 16.1%404 Media: 11.5%Negativity Bias25.4%This article: 15.4%Samantha Cole: 1.0%404 Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias15.4%This article: 6.7%Samantha Cole: 1.1%404 Media: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error6.7%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Samantha Cole: 3.1%404 Media: 0.8%In-Group Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.0%404 Media: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.1%404 Media: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.9%404 Media: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.0%Samantha Cole: 1.7%404 Media: 1.0%Recency Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.1%404 Media: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.4%404 Media: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 3.5%404 Media: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 26.3%Samantha Cole: 1.5%404 Media: 1.3%False Dilemma26.3%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 2.0%404 Media: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 11.4%404 Media: 7.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.0%404 Media: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.7%Bandwagon10.0%This article: 32.9%Samantha Cole: 10.3%404 Media: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion32.9%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 22.5%Samantha Cole: 1.8%404 Media: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.5%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.7%404 Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.5%404 Media: 0.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.3%404 Media: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 25.4%Samantha Cole: 3.8%404 Media: 2.9%Anecdotal25.4%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.3%404 Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 2.5%404 Media: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.0%404 Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.1%404 Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.2%404 Media: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 2.1%404 Media: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 2.1%404 Media: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 48.3%Samantha Cole: 14.8%404 Media: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice48.3%This article: 10.0%Samantha Cole: 3.3%404 Media: 1.5%Indoctrination10.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 0.6%404 Media: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Samantha Cole: 0.1%404 Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Cole: 1.2%404 Media: 2.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

240 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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