by Laurence Pevsner
It is strange that our politicians spend so much time fawning over America’s largest group of disenfranchised citizens. Of course, the pandering isn’t actually to children - it’s to their parents. And the policies that politicians champion disproportionately favor adults. Policies don’t favor young people because young people don’t get a say in the decisions that affect them. There’s no such thing as children’s suffrage. But there should be.
Most adult Americans would laugh at the idea of a 13-year-old walking into a polling booth. But that’s a familiar attitude in the history of American voting rights.
The first state to grant women’s suffrage was Wyoming - and it started as a joke, too. Edward M. Lee, the territory’s secretary, wrote: “During the session, amid the greatest hilarity, and . . . in the full expectation of a gubernatorial veto, an act was passed Enfranchising the Women of Wyoming.” The veto never came. A century later, this inauspicious start came full circle when women were included in the Civil Rights Act as part of yet another lawmaker’s joke.
Still, serious arguments against children’s suffrage abound. Eighteen to 21-year-olds already vote in dismal numbers - why should we give the vote to people even younger, who probably care less? Even if they do care to vote, children don’t have the intellectual capacity or the life experience to understand complex issues. Supposing you did stick them in a polling booth, they’re likely to vote exactly as their parents tell them to - essentially giving parents double, triple, or quadruple the votes.
The Washington Post © 2016 The Washington Post. All rights reserved. Used under license.
Question
Use the passage to answer the question.
Which addition after the last sentence of the passage would strengthen the author’s argument by offering a concession?
(1 point)
Responses
I remember the day I voted, and it changed my life.
I remember the day I voted, and it changed my life.
“Disenfranchisement should be a national priority,” argues Professor John Smith.
“Disenfranchisement should be a national priority,” argues Professor John Smith.
But these arguments are wrong and not worth considering.
But these arguments are wrong and not worth considering.
Critics have a point, as surveys suggest young people have little knowledge or interest in politics.
Critics have a point, as surveys suggest young people have little knowledge or interest in politics.
Skip to navigation
1 answer
The addition that would strengthen the author’s argument by offering a concession is:
Critics have a point, as surveys suggest young people have little knowledge or interest in politics.
This response acknowledges the validity of some concerns about young people’s political awareness while still providing a basis for the author's argument supporting children's suffrage. It allows the author to address counterarguments while maintaining the overall stance that children should be allowed to vote.
1 answer
1 answer
1 answer
1 answer