Review the passage and answer the 2-point Constructed Response (literary analysis) question that follows:

License to Drive

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 to drive. 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.

Does the author compose an effective argument? Explain your answer and cite textual evidence.

I think, in some ways, the author does. However, becasue there is no real opposition that the author lays out, and because of other reasons, I don't think this is a valid arguent.  For a more in-depth analysis, read the explanation.

Explanation:

It hosestly depends on what you would consider the 'other side' of this debate, and what would constitue as a valid argument. If you are looking at the viewpoint of "Yes, this is a valid argument," then these examples and opinions make sense.

A) "Teenagers can learn from having to maintain a vehicle." Yes! Teenagers learn via doing. Not everyone is a visual learner.

B) "...responsible drivers have the wide-open road in front of them and endless opportunitites." Well, I wouldn't word this using endless, per se, but sure. Responsible drivers don't need monitoring. I can get behind that.

C) Read the third Paragraph. Boom! A whole lot of explanation for yeah! Sure! Valid!

If you are looking at the viewpoint of "No, this is not a valid argument," then these examples and opinions make sense.

A) There is a slight Slippery Slope fallacy hidden in this argument. Paragraph four says this:  "This lesson can carry over into school, work and pesonal life."  While this could be true, the sentiment right before it is part of a Slippery Slope fallacy--or just about. There are many reasons to be responsible, and not being allowed to drive at 15 will not crash a student's entire life.

B) In P. 5, yes. Maturity certainly determines if one is 'old' enough to drive. However, how does one measure maturity? There is no test. That's why the legal driving age is 16, just in case some one isn't mature enough to drive without an adult in the car with them.

C) "Those who are not responsibel enough..." Yes, punishment in this context does what? Doesn't let them drive, sure. How do you...enact that into law? 'Oh, if we don't deem you mature enough you will get your liscense revoked. WE determinte if you are mature enough.' That certainly sounds like it would be abused.

D) The very last sentence is very...affronting. It tells me what not to do. People don't like being told what to do or not do, they like to form opinions and act on them. You can purseude them, but outwardly telling them 'Don't do this' will throw any valid argument out of the window.

i have read the novel roll of thunder hear my cry by mildred d. taylor.

1. this isn't like any other story i've read or watched because it is about a black family in mississippi right after slavery in the u.s. had become illegal. most of the novels i have read were about slavery. another point is that the author of the novel used symbolism in a way i haven't seen before. for example she uses thunder as something negative meaning something bad will happen. but by the end of the novel, she made thunder a good thing.

2.   one character that changed during the novel was stacey. stacey is the eldest child of the black logan family. around the begging of the novel stacey was avoiding the white boy jeremy simms. he had a dislike for jeremy's family. but at the end of the novel stacey began to like jeremy.

3. the author starts the novel with the problem that the children of the logan family have to avoid the white kid school bus while walking to school.