How Mornings And Evenings May Look With Permanent Daylight Saving Time ⁠5%

7/17/2026, 12:50:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Hasty Generalization, and Optimism Bias, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 21% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 366 faulty-reasoning hits from 305 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 19.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠5% (20,907 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.50% of the article peer group.

If you’re tired of the twice a year “fall back” and “spring forward” clock change, you may be in luck. 
It may actually become a thing of the past, as the U.S. 
House of Representatives passed the Sunshine Protection Act earlier this week. 
The bill would make daylight saving time permanent across most of the country, but it still needs to be approved by the Senate before heading to the president’s desk. 
If this becomes law and states stay on daylight saving time year round, instead of being observed from March to November as it is now, our mornings and evenings would look a little different at certain times of the year. 
According to AccuWeather, winter mornings would be darker, as sunrises would be pushed an hour later. 
AccuWeather shares what the sunrise and sunset times would be in some cities on January 15th, if we were on daylight saving time: 
Miami - The sun would rise at 8:09 a.m. and set at 6:51 p.m. 
Boston - Sunrise would be at 8:10 a.m., with sunset at 5:36 p.m. 
Kansas City - The sun would rise at 8:35 a.m. and set at 6:19 p.m. 
Billings, Montana - Sunrise would happen at 8:51 a.m., with sunset at 5:56 p.m. 
Los Angeles - Sunrise would be just before 8 a.m., and sunset shortly after 6 p.m. 
But the Sunshine Protection Act wouldn’t affect some parts of the country, including Hawaii and most of Arizona, which already stay on standard time year-round. 
U.S. territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the U.S. 
Virgin Islands don’t observe daylight saving time either. 
But the change isn’t a law yet, so unless it becomes one, we’ll still be turning our clocks back an hour on November 1st. 
Source: Martha Stewart 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 1.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 3.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%105.9 The X: 4.1%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%105.9 The X: 11.2%Framing Effect20.7%This article: 6.6%105.9 The X: 6.9%Loss Aversion6.6%This article: 21.0%105.9 The X: 2.4%Status Quo Bias21.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.5%105.9 The X: 2.0%Optimism Bias10.5%This article: 7.9%105.9 The X: 8.1%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 8.2%105.9 The X: 9.8%Negativity Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 2.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 1.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%105.9 The X: 12.9%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 7.9%105.9 The X: 3.7%False Dilemma7.9%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 3.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.5%105.9 The X: 3.0%Hasty Generalization11.5%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 2.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.6%105.9 The X: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion6.6%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 3.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.6%105.9 The X: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice6.6%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%105.9 The X: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

305 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers41%attributed speech180writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageHouse of Representatives • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAccuWeather • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMartha Stewart • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

AccuWeather

35%flagged-word coverage
111 attributed words89% of attributed speech67% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.1 ptsWriter: 11.1%AccuWeather: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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