Question 190·Hard·Rhetorical Synthesis
While researching a topic, a student has taken the following notes:
- Daylight saving time (DST) was originally introduced to conserve electricity by extending evening daylight hours.
- A 2022 meta-analysis by the European Sleep Research Society found a 6% increase in road accidents during the week after the spring clock change.
- Modern energy-consumption studies show DST reduces overall electricity use by only 0.34%.
- The American Academy of Sleep Medicine links the twice-yearly clock changes to spikes in heart attacks and strokes owing to circadian-rhythm disruption.
- Arizona and Hawaii have remained on standard time since the 1960s without notable declines in evening recreational commerce.
The student is drafting a letter to a state legislator urging the abolition of DST. Which choice most effectively combines and conveys relevant information from the notes to strengthen the student’s argument?
For rhetorical synthesis questions, first underline the writer’s goal (e.g., to support or oppose a policy). Then scan the notes and quickly rank which pieces of information would be most persuasive for that goal—especially concrete data (percentages, results, expert statements). Next, test each choice: eliminate any that (1) take the opposite stance, (2) misstate or exaggerate what the notes say, or (3) ignore the strongest evidence in favor of weaker or irrelevant points. Choose the option that accurately combines multiple key notes into a clear sentence that directly advances the intended argument.
Hints
Clarify the writer’s goal
Ask yourself: Is the writer trying to support keeping DST or to get rid of it? Eliminate any option that works against that goal.
Find the strongest, most relevant notes
Look at the notes and decide which information would be most persuasive to a lawmaker thinking about changing a policy: small energy savings, safety risks, health risks, or state experiences.
Check for accurate use of the notes
Be careful about choices that stretch the notes too far (for example, making claims about "everywhere" in the country) or that describe the 0.34% energy change in a way that does not match the phrase "only 0.34%."
Prefer a clear cost–benefit comparison
Look for a choice that directly contrasts the benefits of DST with its harms in a way that would make abolition seem reasonable.
Step-by-step Explanation
Identify the task and stance
The question says the student is writing a letter to a state legislator urging the abolition of DST. So the correct sentence must argue against DST, not in favor of it, and it should make the argument stronger for a policymaker.
Pick out the most powerful evidence in the notes
Look at which notes are most persuasive for a lawmaker:
- Harms: a 6% increase in road accidents after the spring change, and spikes in heart attacks and strokes from disrupted circadian rhythms.
- Benefit: only a 0.34% reduction in electricity use.
A strong argument will weigh these serious safety and health harms against the very small energy savings.
Check which choices match the purpose and use the notes accurately
Now compare the answer choices to the notes and the goal:
- One choice talks about DST as an "important tradition" that promotes recreation; this clashes with the student's goal of abolishing DST and ignores the commerce note that says states without DST do not see declines.
- Another choice claims that because Arizona and Hawaii opted out, DST is unpopular everywhere; that is an overgeneralization not supported by the notes, and it ignores the safety and health data.
- A third choice argues that a 0.34% energy saving is "meaningful" and concludes DST should remain; that clearly supports keeping DST, the opposite of what the student wants.
The remaining option is the only one that both opposes DST and accurately uses the strongest notes.
Choose the sentence that best strengthens the argument
The best sentence is: “Since DST causes a 6% rise in crashes and disrupts body clocks associated with heart attacks, its tiny 0.34% energy savings hardly justify keeping the practice.”
It:
- Uses two major harms from the notes (increased crashes and heart/circulatory risks).
- Directly compares them with the very small 0.34% electricity saving.
- Clearly supports abolishing DST by arguing that the small benefit does not justify the serious risks.
So the correct answer is B.