Question

1. explain the authors line of reasoning by identifying the claims used to build the argument and the connections between them (6 points)
2. evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence the author uses to support the claims made in the argument. (6 points)

write your responses to part a only on the designated pages in the free - response booklet.
from \why the voting age should be 17\ by peter levine (politico magazine, february 24, 2015)
it is time to try lowering the voting age to 17 nationwide. takoma park, maryland, has done it. iowa, too, for caucuses. scotland went down to age 16 for its recent independence referendum. evidence suggests it will boost informed participation in our democracy over time.
in 1971, at the peak of the youth protests of the baby - boom, the united states passed the 26th amendment, lowering the voting age from 21 to 18. congress and necessary 38 states passed the measure in a mere three months, the fastest passage of any amendment in u.s. history. why? because the nation grasped that it was unacceptable to draft people and not allow them to vote on matters of war and peace, life and death.
if the government affects you, you get to vote. that is the fundamental principle of democracy. of course, small children are too young to vote wisely and independently. but how could 18 - year - olds be too immature to vote if they were mature enough to wear the uniform in a foreign land?
those arguments for the 26th amendment all made excellent sense, and yet 18 may have been a bad age at which to settle. most of us will not vote unless we see people around us voting; that is where we get the idea that it is a civic responsibility. to get into the voting booth, we also need to hear arguments, debates and emotional appeals about the importance of current issues...
penn state political scientist eric plutzer has shown that voting is habitual: once you vote, you are more likely to vote again. by the same token, not voting is also a habit. if people miss the first election that they face as eligible voters, they are starting off with a habit of non - participation. in the 2014 elections, just 5.2 percent of eligible 18 - year - olds voted in the state of california, lower than the turnout of any other age.

Explanation:

1. Author's line of reasoning: The author first presents examples of places lowering the voting - age (Takoma Park, Maryland; Iowa; Scotland). Then, references the 26th Amendment in U.S. history to show that lowering the voting - age has been done before and was seen as necessary. The fundamental democratic principle that those affected by the government should vote is stated. Arguments against the current 18 - year - old voting age are made, such as 18 - year - olds being mature enough to serve in the military. Also, the idea that voting is a habit and starting to vote earlier can increase long - term participation is presented.
2. Effectiveness of evidence: The examples of other places lowering the voting age provide real - world precedents. The reference to the 26th Amendment gives historical context. The democratic principle is a strong theoretical basis. However, the claim about 18 - year - olds' maturity compared to military service is a bit of an apples - to - oranges comparison as military service and voting are different activities. The evidence about voting being a habit from Eric Plutzer is a valid sociological finding. Overall, the evidence is somewhat effective but has some limitations in its comparisons.

Answer:

1. The author builds the argument by using examples of local and international cases of lowering the voting age, historical precedent of the 26th Amendment, the democratic principle of affected parties voting, and the concept of voting as a habit. The connections are that these elements all support the idea that lowering the voting age to 17 would be beneficial for democratic participation.
2. The evidence is somewhat effective. Real - world examples and historical context add weight, but some comparisons (like military service and voting maturity) are not entirely apt. The sociological evidence about voting as a habit is valid.