Question

consider this claim: daylight saving time should be abolished. which is the strongest evidence to support the claim? a study from the national bureau of economic research found that turning the clocks forward in the spring increased energy consumption, contradicting the popular belief that daylight saving time saves energy. turning the clocks forward in the spring means an extra hour of daylight in the evenings, which might motivate people to do more active outdoor activities after work instead of sitting around inside. an economics professor noted that his students often seem less alert in class during the week following daylight saving time because the time change throws off their sleep schedule.

Explanation:

The claim is that daylight saving time should be abolished. The first option provides a study from a respected source (National Bureau of Economic Research) that shows a negative consequence (increased energy consumption) which goes against the main reason (saving energy) people might support daylight - saving time. The second option presents a positive aspect (more outdoor activities) which does not support abolishing. The third option is based on an anecdote from one economics professor about students' alertness, which is less strong evidence compared to a formal study.

Answer:

A study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that turning the clocks forward in the spring increased energy consumption, contradicting the popular belief that daylight saving time saves energy.