Question

consider this claim:

daylight saving time should be abolished.

which is the strongest evidence to support the claim?

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.

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.

Explanation:

To support the claim that daylight saving time (DST) should be abolished, we need evidence showing a negative impact of DST.

• The first option is anecdotal (one professor’s observation) and focuses on student alertness, which is less generalizable.
• The second option presents a study from a reputable source (National Bureau of Economic Research) showing DST increases energy consumption, contradicting its supposed energy - saving benefit. This is empirical, objective, and impacts a broader area (energy, a societal concern), making it strong evidence for abolishing DST.
• The third option highlights a potential benefit of DST (more outdoor activity), which would support keeping DST, not abolishing it.

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.