House of Representatives passes bill that makes the shift to daylight saving time permanent 38%

By DEEPTI HAJELA45%

7/18/2026, 6:53:58 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.8% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 968 faulty-reasoning hits from 576 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.9% and a BS Rank of 38% (13,679 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 62.50% of the article peer group.

It's an idea whose time, as it were, may have come - again. 
The twice-yearly changing of the clocks in the United States could be a thing of the past if legislation currently in Congress that calls for permanent daylight time makes it through. 
But even as annoying as some find the back-and-forth of the time shift in the spring and the fall, that doesn't necessarily mean sticking to one would go over well. 
America has tried it before, most recently in the 1970s, and it didn't last. 
Now it's a new era, one full of people working at home who didn't before - and advances in sleep science that tell a more nuanced tale. 
Could this time (shift) be the charm? 
What's going on this time around? 
The House of Representatives on Tuesday voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that makes the shift to daylight saving time, when clocks are moved forward one hour, become permanent. 
Currently, the shift is forward in spring and back to standard time in fall as a way to give people more daylight time in the summer evenings. 
But the semi-annual change has few fans - an AP-NORC poll last year found that only 12% of American adults were in favor of it, while almost half opposed it. 
Proponents of a single time include the American Medical Association and American Academy of Sleep Medicine - outfits to whom daily rhythms are deeply important. 
President Donald Trump has indicated he's supportive, but it's unclear whether the legislation will pass any time soon. 
It faces roadblocks in the Senate, where some Republicans are strongly opposed. 
Arkansas Sen. 
Tom Cotton, a member of Republican leadership, has been outspoken against the change, saying last year that enacting it would "make winter a dark and dismal time for millions of Americans." 
What's the big deal with changing it? 
While people may not like making the change, history shows they also don't like living with even less morning light in the winter months, when daylight hours are shorter than in summer. 
In 1973, Congress passed a law instituting permanent daylight saving time for what was supposed to be a trial period from January 1974 to April 1975. 
It lasted until October, when it was repealed after public outcry. 
Among the concerns was worry that schoolchildren would have to start the school day without daylight. 
These days, some school starting times have started to shift later. 
Kevin Birth, a professor of anthropology at Queens College whose research focuses on cultural concepts of time, was in elementary school in Syracuse, New York, at the time and remembers it vividly. 
"I had to get up for school, and it was like it was midnight," he said. 
"It was just pitch black, and it remained pitch black into the school day." 
If the U.S. decides to try it again, he said, more has to change than just the clocks. 
The time zones across the country would need to be adapted as well. 
The current four zones wouldn't be adequate - they cover so much ground that sunrise comes at different times in western and eastern parts of each zone. 
Republican South Dakota Sen. 
Mike Rounds is concerned about that. 
He said that it would be dark past 9:30 a.m. in some areas of his state. 
"You'd be sending kids to school in the dark," he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.6%ABC7 Chicago: 2.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.5%Deepti Hajela: 6.6%ABC7 Chicago: 6.4%Availability Heuristic15.5%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.7%ABC7 Chicago: 0.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.6%Deepti Hajela: 2.6%ABC7 Chicago: 0.7%Hindsight Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 8.7%ABC7 Chicago: 18.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.6%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 10.8%Deepti Hajela: 1.2%ABC7 Chicago: 1.7%Status Quo Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.5%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Deepti Hajela: 3.9%ABC7 Chicago: 3.0%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.9%ABC7 Chicago: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Deepti Hajela: 11.6%ABC7 Chicago: 7.4%Negativity Bias20.8%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Deepti Hajela: 0.8%ABC7 Chicago: 0.2%In-Group Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.4%ABC7 Chicago: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Deepti Hajela: 1.2%ABC7 Chicago: 1.6%Recency Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.6%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%ABC7 Chicago: 0.9%Ad Hominem5.4%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.2%Deepti Hajela: 6.5%ABC7 Chicago: 7.2%Appeal to Authority14.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 1.9%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.4%ABC7 Chicago: 1.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.2%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.1%Circular Reasoning1.2%This article: 13.2%Deepti Hajela: 5.5%ABC7 Chicago: 4.7%Hasty Generalization13.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.0%Deepti Hajela: 2.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.5%Bandwagon5.0%This article: 15.6%Deepti Hajela: 8.0%ABC7 Chicago: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion15.6%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%ABC7 Chicago: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.3%Deepti Hajela: 1.5%ABC7 Chicago: 0.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.3%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.2%Deepti Hajela: 0.5%ABC7 Chicago: 0.1%Burden of Proof1.2%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%ABC7 Chicago: 1.4%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 15.5%Deepti Hajela: 8.6%ABC7 Chicago: 2.2%Anecdotal15.5%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Deepti Hajela: 0.9%ABC7 Chicago: 0.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.2%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.7%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.4%ABC7 Chicago: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.8%Deepti Hajela: 0.7%ABC7 Chicago: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 17.7%Deepti Hajela: 3.0%ABC7 Chicago: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice17.7%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.8%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 4.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.0%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Deepti Hajela: 0.3%ABC7 Chicago: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

576 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers33%attributed speech385writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageHouse of Representatives • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTom Cotton • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 32 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 16 words • 100.0% coverageKevin Birth • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKevin Birth • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMike Rounds • 6 words • 0.0% coverageMike Rounds • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMike Rounds • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Cotton

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words16% of attributed speech64% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.8 ptsWriter: 21.8%Tom Cotton: 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.