Representative weaver claims that his bill is 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?

4
select the correct answer.

which supporting claim does the author offer to support the argument?

a.
teenagers need to drive to participate in activities and jobs.
b.
teenagers are better drivers than most adults.
c.
teenagers can learn more rules about driving safety.
d.
teenagers learn to drive better later by starting young.