Representative Weaver claims that his billis motivated by "safety," "Nearly half of all accidents involve people under the age of 21," Representative Weaver claims, "Raising the driving age," he adds, 'would mean raising the level of safety on America's roads." But I would ask Representative Weaver
the following questions: Do not "nearly half of all accidents involve men? Wouldn't the streets be safer, then, if male drivers were abolished? And
what about the percentage of accidents occur on paved roads? Should we do away with paved roads, too?
Here are some more questions I would like to ask Representative Weaver: If the driving age is raised to 21, what will happen to all the afternoon jobs,
the sports, and programs that require some sort of transportation? What will happen to America's economy (and its spirit) when high schooler
students can no longer work at restaurants? "A teenager behind the wheel is the symbol of American youth," writes author Peter Chacha. What will
happen to this symbol if Representative Weaver's plan is approved? 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? We know the police have their eyes on the teenagers, but are they looking at the adults as well?
Which supporting claim does the author offer to support the argument?
O A Teenagers need to drive to participate in activities and jobs.
OB. Teenagers are better drivers than most adults.
OC. Teenagers can learn more rules about driving safety
OD. Teenagers learn to drive better later by starting young,

2 3 6

explanation:

the words “strangest” and “unusual” suggest that the narrator is about to tell the story of an odd or puzzling group of people.

formal arguments

in written, formal arguments, the best way to build credibility with readers is to provide them with evidence. no matter what your argument might be and which side you agree with, citing strong evidence to back up your claim leaves the opposition with little to argue.

emotional appeal is often used in oral arguments. written arguments, however, rely on four main types of evidence. as you read further, you will see that some types are more credible than others and "hold more water" so to speak.

statistical evidence

the strongest type of evidence in formal writing is statistical evidence. this ranges from true, hard data presented as a percentage or number, to survey-type data. for example, statistical evidence could be:

4 out of 5 experts claim

85% of women in the united

7 members were present

statistical evidence can be proven as fact. you can actually go out and find hard information to prove your particular claim.

testimonial evidence

the use of celebrities as credibility evidence can be considered testimonial in nature. many people look up to celebrities as role models in their lives. good or bad, when a person chooses a life-path that takes them into public light, there will be many others out there who want to emulate the celebrity. these celebrity endorsements provide the second-strongest type of evidence found in formal arguments.

testimonial evidence can also be collected from experts and authorities in a given field. doctors, dentists, lawyers often provide expert testimonials. their authority is not often questions. they are expected to "know their stuff."

anecdotal evidence

when storytelling is involved as evidence, anecdotal evidence is being used. due to its less objective nature, anecdotal evidence is not extremely strong. when coupled with statistical or testimonial evidence, anecdotal evidence can be highly effective in determining credibility or proof.

storytelling, although based on fact, can include quite a bit of opinion, thus making it less objective. usually, eyewitnesses are used as providers of anecdotal evidence. they saw or experienced the phenomenon at hand are telling their version or side of the story.

analogical evidence

when information is scarce about something and little is known, analogical evidence is often used in a formal argument to increase credibility of the proof. if the phenomenon in question is new and little is known about it, analogical evidence that pulls in known factors about a similar phenomenon to show parallels can be an effective way to provide proof.

due to limited knowledge about the phenomenon, in this situation, analogical evidence can be regarded as the weakest type of evidence used in formal arguments. one can only imagine and hope that the comparison-phenomenon is close enough that the results can be applied to the new phenomenon.

in the

all that really matters in a formal argument is whether or not the writer has credible evidence to back up what they want to say or what they are thinking. so often, we hear people say, "prove it! " to one another.

one last little formal arguments not only provide credible evidence to support claims, don't forget that acknowledgment of the opposing point of view in an argument also strengthens the entire product.

this is a good question! i'll do some research and come back when i have the answer!