Question

Which lines in this editorial show faulty reasoning?


Save Teenage Driving: A Call to Arms

an editorial by Sophie Behrend

Recently, House Representative Ken Weaver of Washington State proposed a bill (House Bill R-9687b) that would raise the legal driving age to 21. You heard me right—Congress is considering raising the driving age to 21. If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it.

Representative Weaver claims that his bill is motivated by "safety." He argues, “Nearly half of all accidents involve people under the age of 21." Representative Weaver also claims, "Raising the driving age would mean raising the level of safety on America's roads."

But I would ask Representative Weaver: Do not "nearly half" of all accidents involve men, and would not the streets be safer, then, if male drivers were outlawed? And what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too?

Weaver also claims that "a majority of seat belt violations" are the fault of the under-21 crowd. But let me ask you this: Do people under the age of 21 really wear their seat belts less often than older people, or are they just caught more often? That is, we know the police have their eye on the teenagers, but are they looking at the adults as well?

But I can hear it now: "If teenagers are all so safe, why do they have such high accident rates?" Here's a possible answer: inexperience. Like anybody who is inexperienced, the teenage driver must suffer through a legitimate period of self-doubt and skills acquisition. Chances are, if the driving age were moved to 21, we would see 21- to 24-year-olds causing the largest percentage of safety problems—not because of a maturity problem, mind you, but just because they would be inexperienced at driving.


A. If you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it.

B. Do not "nearly half" of all accidents involve men, and would not the streets be safer, then, if male drivers were outlawed? And what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too?



C. Weaver also claims that "a majority of seat belt violations" are the fault of the under-21 crowd. But let me ask you this: Do people under the age of 21 really wear their seat belts less often than older people, or are they just caught more often?

D. But I can hear it now: "If teenagers are all so safe, why do they have such high accident rates?"

Answer 1

@YoungStudier @ivettef365 @Prince1342 @puertoricangirl @Anaise @Sachintha @Sachintha @supercalifragalisticexspeaalli @studybuddie @de4thschy7he @Dennisdf @jtug6 @jigglypuff314 @Lataviaferguson @lncognlto Will Fan And Medal

Answer 2

@Jadeishere @Kikuo @kodatfaulk @batmaaaanxD @Prince1342 @ElectricImpurity @Zeronknight Help @Anaise @Courtneytolbert15

Answer 3

Well, read the given options. Which one sounds wrong, as though it shouldn't be in a persuasive argument?

Answer 4

There's A, that discusses how the law would be a catastrophe and end the authors life
There's B, bringing male drivers to the stand and saying that if weren't based on age, it'd be a law against paved roads and male drivers (A valid point)
There's C, battling minors and the elderly, asking a question of "Are we only caught more than the elders, or are we actually more reckless?"
There's D, her question that she assumes others would ask, but then she backs it up with fact. Most teenagers are inexperienced.

Answer 5

Soo B @Jadeishere

Answer 6

Actually, I'd say it was A. Are there any factual statements in A? Or is it only assumptions about what could possibly happen if the law was made? In B, there is facts, while they may be a stereotype based off of sexism, males are statistically proven to have gotten into more accidents than women