Question

read ahmad’s argument in favor of changing the minimum driving age from 16 to 15. every year, millions of teenagers look forward to the freedom of earning their driver’s license. it has been proven over time that teenagers are fully responsible by the time they are 15, and making them wait until they are 16 to obtain a driver’s license is wrong. many teenagers play sports, work jobs, and have an active social life when they are 15. it would be beneficial to the functioning of society if these people were able to independently drive themselves around. parents agree, too. most people believe that the streets would be safer if the minimum driving age were reduced to 15. what is the best evaluation of ahmad’s reasoning? \bigcirc it is illogical because it relies on faulty reasoning. \bigcirc it is logical because it stays on topic. \bigcirc it is illogical because it shows no bias. \bigcirc it is logical because it gives true statistics.

Explanation:

Ahmad's reasoning is illogical. He claims it's “fully proven” teenagers are responsible by 15 without evidence, uses anecdotal claims (many teens play sports/work at 15, parents agree) instead of valid stats, and the “most people believe” part is a bandwagon fallacy. The reasoning has faulty logic (unsubstantiated claims, fallacies) rather than valid structure or true stats. Staying on topic doesn't make it logical if reasoning is flawed, and showing no bias isn't the issue here—faulty reasoning is.

Answer:

A. It is illogical because it relies on faulty reasoning.