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. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
0%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
31.7%
Optimism Bias
26.3%
Pessimism Bias
5.4%
Negativity Bias
25.4%
Self-Serving Bias
15.4%
Fundamental Attribution Error
6.7%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
10%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
10%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
26.3%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
10%
Appeal to Emotion
32.9%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
22.5%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
25.4%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
48.3%
Indoctrination
10%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
10%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

240 words analyzed.

Analysis

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