Question

There is no reason why a person who is fifteen years old should not be allowed to get a driver's license. There is nothing magic about the number of years in a person's age. Teenagers can learn from having to maintain a vehicle. The real issue when considering whether teens should drive or not is their level of responsibility.
Driving a car puts you in a position of great opportunity and risk. Driving too fast, or recklessly, is dangerous. You can endanger your own life. You can also endanger the lives of everyone else on the road. Listening to the radio or texting friends has caused many accidents on the road. But responsible drivers have the wide-open road in front of them and endless opportunities.

For a teenager who has already proven to be a responsible person, the ability to drive provides many benefits. For one, it encourages further development of responsibility. By rewarding a responsive teen with the freedom of driving, society teaches the teen that responsible behavior pays off in the long run. The parents of the teen will also benefit by not having to drive their teen around to work, school and extracurricular activities.

In contrast, a responsible teen who were denied the right to drive may think, "What's the point of trying to be responsible?" This lesson can carry over into school, work and personal life. If teenagers feel like their parents do not trust them, they may begin to doubt themselves.

Some people question whether fifteen-year-olds are old enough tod rive. My answer is that some are. Some are not. The question is not the numerical age of the person, but how mature they are. If mature and responsible teens are given the opportunity to drive, them everyone benefits. Those who are not responsible should not be aloud to operate a vehicle. But don't punish everyone just because of a few bad apples.



How reasonable is the author's opening claim, "There is no reason why a person who is fifteen years old should not be allowed to get a driver's license"?

Question 1 options:

not reasonable because it ignores valid objections that could be raised


not reasonable because it assumes that all teenagers want to drive


very reasonable because the author proves that there are no risks to teens driving


very reasonable because the author makes an objective claim and supports it

Answer 1

Answer:

Not reasonable because it ignores valid objections that could be raised.

Explanation:

As the author says "There is nothing magic about the number of years in a person's age", it is true there is nothing magic but this is not reasonable because there are two crucial points related to age and driving:

i- development and healthy;

ii- criminal liability and civil responsibility.

Both teenagers and older people have specific age related conditions. Many scientific studies suggest that teenagers don’t have their brain and psychological characteristics fully developed, because they haven’t fully developed their cognition and sense of responsibility they may choose to take more risks when driving such as using cellphone or drinking and driving. On the other side the elderly tends to loose physical strength, having issues with vision, audition or mental abilities, or responding slowly to events and be impaired to operate a vehicle.  

So many states will define a minimum age for driving based in the age of criminal liability and civil responsibility stated in the constitution or in laws. It is not just about parents trust and sense of responsibility but also about laws and substantial knowledge about human development.