The subject and predicate
Answer:
<u>Claim:</u> the voting age should be lowered to 16 years old.
<u>Opposing claim:</u> some people are against it because they believe that 16 years olds can not make informed decisions and are going to vote according to whim or how their parents tell them to vote.
<u>Counterclaim:</u> lowering the voting age is more likely to produce a better-informed body of voters since school can help them with courses for such thing.
Explanation:
The claim in this text is that the voting age should be lowered since young people deserve to have a say in the direction of the country. Some of the reasons supporting this claim are that 16-year-olds are mature enough for this decision in contrast with teenagers of previous generations as shown in studies. Also, they are more informed and competent than adults.
The opposing claim states that 16 years olds are not well informed, and they will vote according to what their parents tell them to vote or without consciousness. There are no investigations in the article that support the opposing claim.
The counterclaim says that as 16-year-olds are still in school, the education system can develop instruction courses to teach them about the candidates. As they have the right to vote, students will be motivated to learn about this topic.
The essence of Gatsby's materialistic dream is that he is still infatuated with Daisy and needs her to finish his fantasy and he needs to be acknowledged in the "old cash" bunch. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more in brainly.
