The $10 lunch special still exists, even in the Bay Area 24%

By MacKenzie Chung Fegan0%

8/8/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 210 faulty-reasoning hits from 363 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.7% and a BS Rank of 24% (23,057 of 30,209 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.30% of the article peer group.

Each week, we share some favorite recent bites, the dishes and snacks and baked goods that didn’t find their way into a full review. 
Want the list a few days earlier? 
Sign up for our free newsletter, Bite Curious. 
Ten. 
Dollar. 
Phở. 
Sure, it’s not in San Francisco, and okay, it’s a dine-in-only weekday lunch special. 
But the portion is incredibly generous, and a $10 lunch feels downright retro. 
The deal is running at Simmer in Rohnert Park Monday through Friday, 11 a.m. to 3 p.m., and it applies to phở made with thinly sliced round-eye steak, beef meatballs, shredded chicken breast, or mixed veggies. 
The meat in my chicken phở was a little on the dry side; I’d check out one of the beef options next time. 
In addition to the phở special, there are also vermicelli bowls and rice plates topped with your choice of barbecued meat  including a sweet, smoky pork  for $14. 
Simmer. 
6358 Commerce Blvd., Rohnert Park. simmerfamily.com 
In 2024, my colleague Elena Kadvany named a chubby, mousse-filled mochi dessert from East Bay popup Mochi Koubou her best bite of the year. 
Elena, after sampling one at Soba Ichi, I get it. 
The mochi wrapper encases the dome of mango/passionfruit/raspberry mousse somewhat imperfectly, with the edges of the seams poking out like little feet, while the filling is ethereally light, like spritzing Reddi-whip into your mouth straight from the can. 
If you’ve ever wondered what it would be like to devour Kirby, here’s your chance. 
Mochi Koubou. 
Sometimes at Soba Ichi, 2311A Magnolia St., Oakland. 
Check instagram.com/mochikoubou for upcoming popups. 
Seeking something fried to balance our silken tofu and oden at Rintaro, my party ordered the karei no karaage, a whole petrale sole that’s deep fried, bones and all. 
It’s crunch on crunch on crunch, the stuff of summertime fish shack dreams by way of Japan. 
On the side is a little pitcher of tsuyu, a slurpably light mix of dashi, mirin and soy that soaks into the fleshier parts of the battered fish for optimal crispy-gone-soggy bites. 
Rintaro. 82 14th St., San Francisco. izakayarintaro.com 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 1.5%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.5%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 1.9%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.9%Framing Effect3.9%This article: 3.6%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.6%This article: 3.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 4.1%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.8%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 3.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 5.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.6%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 3.3%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.3%Appeal to Authority6.6%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.1%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 2.1%San Francisco Chronicle: 2.6%Anecdotal9.1%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.2%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 3.3%Biased Writer Voice15.2%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 0.0%San Francisco Chronicle: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%MacKenzie Chung Fegan: 2.2%San Francisco Chronicle: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.7%

363 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker2.8%attributed speech353writer words
Selected voice

Elena Kadvany

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words100% of attributed speech48% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.6 ptsWriter: 15.6%Elena Kadvany: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Elena Kadvany: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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