‘Euphoria’ was off the air for four years. But it never went away. ⁠52%

By Emily Yahr⁠0%

4/12/2026, 10:00:37 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Recency Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 32.1% saturation with 26 hits. Analysis detected 259 faulty-reasoning hits from 81 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠52% (10,701 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.10% of the article peer group.

‘Euphoria’ was off the air for four years. 
But it never went away. 
Zendaya, Sydney Sweeney and Jacob Elordi kept the twisted teen drama on our cultural radar, and it’s finally returning for a third (and probably final) season. 
Even before the final episode of “Euphoria’s” second season aired in February 2022, HBO announced that the series had been renewed for Season 3. 
Then four years went by. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 29.6%Emily Yahr: 7.4%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias29.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Emily Yahr: 14.2%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic12.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.5%Emily Yahr: 7.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect18.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 32.1%Emily Yahr: 16.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias32.1%This article: 12.3%Emily Yahr: 3.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 8.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 32.1%Emily Yahr: 16.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect32.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 32.1%Emily Yahr: 9.6%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias32.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 29.6%Emily Yahr: 7.4%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority29.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 32.1%Emily Yahr: 19.1%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization32.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 8.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 32.1%Emily Yahr: 8.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.3%Emily Yahr: 3.1%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 32.1%Emily Yahr: 8.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote32.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 12.3%Emily Yahr: 22.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice12.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Yahr: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

81 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker30%attributed speech57writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageHBO • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

HBO

100%flagged-word coverage
24 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote-45.6 ptsWriter: 45.6%HBO: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.5 ptsWriter: 17.5%HBO: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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