Read the sample student paragraph that addresses a counterclaim and rebuttal on increasing the legal age of driving to eighteen.

Question

With car crashes being the leading cause of death among teenagers, many are in favor of raising the legal driving age to eighteen. However, those who cite these statistics are overlooking other important facts. For instance, men are seventy-seven percent more likely to be involved in an accident than women. Does this mean that we should ban men from driving? Other statistics show that one is more likely to be involved in an accident in Newark, New Jersey, than anywhere else in the nation. Does this mean that we should ban people in Newark from driving? Is it fair to simply look at crash statistics and apply them to an entire group of people without considering all of the factors involved? There are many factors other than age involved in causing an accident, and these factors are the ones that actually need to be addressed.

What makes this rebuttal effective?

It proves that age has nothing to do with causing accidents.
It lists the biggest factors involved in causing accidents.
It suggests that gender is the issue as opposed to age.
It provides strong reasons to weaken the counterclaim.

Answer 1

The effectiveness of the rebuttal primarily comes from how it challenges the counterclaim by providing relevant examples and asking thought-provoking questions. Here's a breakdown of why the rebuttal is effective:

1. Challenges the Generalization: The rebuttal effectively points out that using age alone as a metric for determining driving capability is overly simplistic and ignores other key factors that contribute to driving safety.

2. Uses Analogies: By comparing the risks associated with male drivers and drivers in specific locations (like Newark), the paragraph illustrates that accidents are influenced by many variables, thus narrowing the focus and weakening the argument for raising the legal driving age based solely on accident statistics.

3. Asks Rhetorical Questions: The questions posed in the rebuttal encourage readers to think critically about the reasoning behind the counterclaim and consider whether it's fair to generalize based on age alone.

4. Focus on Comprehensive Solutions: It emphasizes the need to address a variety of factors related to accidents, implying that better solutions should be sought rather than simply raising the driving age.

Thus, the most fitting choice based on the analysis would be: It provides strong reasons to weaken the counterclaim. This highlights the rebuttal's role in undermining the argument for changing the legal driving age by presenting alternative viewpoints and factors impacting driving safety.