The best Costco wines of 2025⁠92%

By Tan Vinh⁠0% Brandi Fullwood⁠0%

12/18/2025, 12:45:01 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Framing Effect, and Optimism Bias, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 57.8% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 499 faulty-reasoning hits from 154 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,875 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.40% of the article peer group.

It’s that time of year! 
Seattle Times food critic Tan Vinh is back with the best Costco wines you will want to buy for holiday dinner parties… or last minute gifts. 
Plus, Tan has pairings to go with the top three wines! 
Seattle Times politics reporter (and former French sous chef) David Gutman, joins Tan for an early morning wine tasting and review. 
Read more about the top rated Costco wines of 2025 in The Seattle Times: https://www.seattletimes.com/life/food-drink/costco-wine-best-cheapest-bottles-rated-by-our-holiday-sommeliers/ 
Recommendations in this episode: 
- NV Prosecco Rosé + Roy Thai, Phinney Ridge 
- 2023 Gigondas + Meat Moot (take out!), SLU 
- 2020 Brunello Di Montalcino + Stevie’s Famous Pizza 
Seattle Eats is a production of The Seattle Times and KUOW, part of the NPR Network. 
You can support Seattle Eats by investing in the local newsrooms and the specialized beats that make this sort of storytelling possible. 
Support the show at kuow.org/eats and seattletimes.com. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 26.6%Tan Vinh: 30.1%KUOW: 1.3%Anchoring Bias26.6%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 6.7%KUOW: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 39.0%Tan Vinh: 47.2%KUOW: 7.4%Framing Effect39.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 57.8%Tan Vinh: 52.2%KUOW: 2.7%Halo Effect57.8%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 24.0%Tan Vinh: 39.4%KUOW: 2.0%In-Group Bias24.0%This article: 14.3%Tan Vinh: 9.5%KUOW: 1.0%Loss Aversion14.3%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 8.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 31.2%Tan Vinh: 20.8%KUOW: 3.8%Optimism Bias31.2%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 11.3%KUOW: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 5.6%KUOW: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 5.4%KUOW: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 2.6%KUOW: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 6.7%KUOW: 3.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 57.8%Tan Vinh: 60.2%KUOW: 4.3%Appeal to Authority57.8%This article: 18.8%Tan Vinh: 24.0%KUOW: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion18.8%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.7%Tan Vinh: 12.1%KUOW: 0.8%Bandwagon9.7%This article: 14.3%Tan Vinh: 4.8%KUOW: 0.8%Begging the Question14.3%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 13.6%Tan Vinh: 9.1%KUOW: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy13.6%This article: 16.9%Tan Vinh: 11.3%KUOW: 4.1%Hasty Generalization16.9%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 4.8%KUOW: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Tan Vinh: 0.0%KUOW: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

154 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.