Which line or 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 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