House passes bill to make daylight saving time permanent 76%

By KEVIN FREKING37%

7/18/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Quote-first Misdirection, and Unattributed Quote, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 26.2% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 381 faulty-reasoning hits from 244 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69% and a BS Rank of 76% (4,396 of 18,323 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 76.00% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  There will be no turning back the clock if the House has its way. 
The House passed a bill Tuesday that would make daylight saving time permanent. 
Proponents, including the White House, argued the change would provide more daylight during the times that Americans are most active. 
The vote was 308-117. 
Lawmakers in the House have been trying to make daylight saving time permanent for years. 
In 2020, the House passed a bill that would have made daylight saving time permanent, but it did not make it out of the Senate. 
Rep. 
Jamie Raskin, D-Md., who sponsored the bill, said that the change would provide more daylight during the times that Americans are most active. 
He also said that the change would help to reduce the number of traffic accidents and that it would also help to reduce the number of crimes. 
“I think that this is a bill that will make a lot of people happy,” Raskin said. 
“I think that this is a bill that will make a lot of people happy.” 
Rep. 
Vern Buchanan, R-Fla., who co-sponsored the bill, said that he believes that the bill will pass the Senate and be signed into law by the president. 
“I think that this is a bill that will make a lot of people happy,” Buchanan said. 
“I think that this is a bill that will make a lot of people happy.” 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
10.7%
Framing Effect
3.7%
Loss Aversion
6.6%
Status Quo Bias
6.1%
Sunk Cost Effect
6.1%
Optimism Bias
24.2%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
9.4%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
8.2%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
6.6%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
1.6%
Appeal to Emotion
26.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
11.1%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
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
12.3%
Quote-first Misdirection
13.9%
Biased Writer Voice
9.4%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

244 words analyzed.

Analysis

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