The Columbian⁠60%

Washington lawmakers split on permanent daylight saving time ⁠42%

By Ann Duan⁠60% The Seattle Times⁠54%

7/17/2026, 1:49:51 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 60% saturation with 39 hits. Analysis detected 134 faulty-reasoning hits from 65 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (16,125 of 27,714 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.20% of the article peer group.

Permanent daylight saving time could be on the horizon — that is, if the U.S. 
Senate approves. 
A bill that passed the House of Representatives on Tuesday could make it so we won’t have to switch our clocks twice a year. 
Washington lawmakers are split on whether the move will be beneficial or detrimental to public health. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.6%Ann Duan: 6.2%The Columbian: 3.5%Confirmation Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 49.2%Ann Duan: 21.5%The Columbian: 6.8%Framing Effect49.2%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 60.0%Ann Duan: 15.0%The Columbian: 2.6%Optimism Bias60.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.6%Ann Duan: 6.2%The Columbian: 9.4%Negativity Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.6%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 24.6%Ann Duan: 12.3%The Columbian: 1.2%False Dilemma24.6%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 3.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.1%Ann Duan: 5.8%The Columbian: 5.7%Biased Writer Voice23.1%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ann Duan: 0.0%The Columbian: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

65 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading


Analysis

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