The best Costco wines of 202591%

By Tan Vinh0% Brandi Fullwood0%

12/18/2025, 8:45:01 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 91% (1,550 of 16,813 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.80% 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. 
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
26.6%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Confirmation Bias
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Framing Effect
39%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Halo Effect
57.8%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Horn Effect
0%
In-Group Bias
24%
Loss Aversion
14.3%
Negativity Bias
0%
Optimism Bias
31.2%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Anecdotal
0%
Appeal to Authority
57.8%
Appeal to Emotion
18.8%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Bandwagon
9.7%
Begging the Question
14.3%
Burden of Proof
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Composition/Division
0%
False Dilemma
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Genetic Fallacy
13.6%
Hasty Generalization
16.9%
Middle Ground
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Red Herring
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Straw Man
0%
Tu Quoque
0%

154 words analyzed.

Analysis

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