House passes bill to make daylight saving time permanent 78%

By KEVIN FREKING38%

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 78% (4,986 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.20% 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.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%Athens Daily Review: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.5%Athens Daily Review: 2.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Kevin Freking: 1.2%Athens Daily Review: 14.3%Overconfidence Bias10.7%This article: 3.7%Kevin Freking: 9.9%Athens Daily Review: 5.6%Framing Effect3.7%This article: 6.6%Kevin Freking: 0.6%Athens Daily Review: 2.2%Loss Aversion6.6%This article: 6.1%Kevin Freking: 1.2%Athens Daily Review: 2.0%Status Quo Bias6.1%This article: 6.1%Kevin Freking: 0.2%Athens Daily Review: 2.0%Sunk Cost Effect6.1%This article: 24.2%Kevin Freking: 2.0%Athens Daily Review: 29.1%Optimism Bias24.2%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 2.2%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 6.8%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 9.4%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 3.1%Actor-Observer Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 4.8%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 1.7%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.8%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.5%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Kevin Freking: 2.0%Athens Daily Review: 2.7%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 3.4%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.6%Kevin Freking: 0.8%Athens Daily Review: 2.2%Slippery Slope6.6%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 4.4%Athens Daily Review: 7.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.6%Kevin Freking: 1.1%Athens Daily Review: 0.5%Bandwagon1.6%This article: 26.2%Kevin Freking: 8.3%Athens Daily Review: 26.2%Appeal to Emotion26.2%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.1%Kevin Freking: 1.6%Athens Daily Review: 3.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.1%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.1%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.7%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.0%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.3%Kevin Freking: 0.5%Athens Daily Review: 4.1%Unattributed Quote12.3%This article: 13.9%Kevin Freking: 1.5%Athens Daily Review: 4.6%Quote-first Misdirection13.9%This article: 9.4%Kevin Freking: 4.3%Athens Daily Review: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice9.4%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.4%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.9%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kevin Freking: 0.3%Athens Daily Review: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

244 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers45%attributed speech134writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Raskin • 23 words • 100.0% coverageJamie Raskin • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJamie Raskin • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageVern Buchanan • 26 words • 0.0% coverageVern Buchanan • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Vern Buchanan

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words39% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Quote-first Misdirection+39.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Vern Buchanan: 39.5%39.5%Unattributed Quote-22.4 ptsWriter: 22.4%Vern Buchanan: 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.