Should the federal government lower the minimum legal drinking age to 18?
In-Depth Presentation of the Sides (about 4-5 pages each).
Connection, Transitions and Topic Sentences: In any extended writing, you need to write clearly “themed” paragraphs, and transition between sections. Think of yourself as your reader’s guide to the issue, and to the story you are telling; say “guidelike” things such as: “Now that we have determined the major stakeholders for this position, and the values that motivate them, we turn to the important issue of X…..” Transitions and topic sentences explain the connection between one idea and the next, and are generally found in the same place: the first sentence of a paragraph. You take some main idea from the previous paragraph (or alternately, some just-mentioned term), and connect it to the major theme of the current paragraph, helping your reader follow you from idea to idea. There is info on transitions all over the web, as well as in grammar handbooks, and they will be a sticking point for me if they are missing—in a paper so long it is easy to lose the thread of ideas. For your paper to be you also want to connect each sentence to the one before it, using transition words like “also,” “but,” or “thus,” and demonstrative pronouns like “such,” “these” or “this.” In fact, as you read , look for how I use words to connect my sentences.
Narration: You may sparingly use the first-person “I” or “we” in your narration, though some readers find the “we” presumptuous and coercive. You may also stick to the social science model of impersonal narration (i.e. “This section will examine…” or “This paper will explore…” or even “This researcher found that…”). Generally, it is not appropriate to use “you” in academic prose, as it sounds overly familiar and colloquial.
IV. In-Depth Presentation of Side B Con side Opponents of lowering Minimum Drinking age
Stake holders include some authorities and parents.
A. Stakeholders and Values
1. Summarize Side B’s position again, and their major arguments.
2. . Stakeholders: Comprehensively describe your general and specific stakeholders, their stake or interest in the issue, and the economic, political and/or moral values that shape their position
B. Side B Issues:
1. Issues Intro: Introduce the major issues you are about to discuss.
2. Issue One: Arguments and evidence used by Side B (including stats, case and research studies, anecdotal evidence, expert testimony, court rulings, etc).
3. Issue Two: Arguments and evidence used by Side B
4. Issue Three: Arguments and evidence used by Side B
C. Side B Plans (discuss Side B’s plan or plans of action for solving the problem, or otherwise advancing their cause).
IV. Depth Presentation of con side (done by the customer)
Parent and adults, highway governor and healthinstitution, comprise the con side. The debate MLDA is a discussion of safety. The background explains why the 21 MLDA was put and why they didn’t stay with 18, 19 or 20. According to the con side, the MLDA is working mainly for the traffic death.
Parents are the primary stakeholders of this controversy. They concerned about the safety of their children and claimed that a low MLDA would have a disaster result. One of the most significant associations against is the MDDA. A mother victim of the drunk driving issue founded the mothers against the drunk driving organization. Her daughter was by a drunk driver so since 1980 she created MADD to protect young people. In 1920, 25,000 people were killed in a car accident 50% of it was related to alcohol. The first mission that they had was to decrease the number of drunk drivers and helping the victim of drunk driving. Letting young people drink early will assault and sexual abuse, in fact, intoxicated young are not able to run or defend themselves and are at the mercy of rapist, muggers, and other attackers. They are an easy target so keep it high preserve them to this danger. Also, lower the MLDA might increase the young injuries which one of the primary reasons for young death. Young people are more intending to do crazy things. When they sober, they can do crazy like jump off the roof, drag race and climb into a car with a strange but they still have some limit. When they are getting drunk, they lost every limited they have and got out of control. Early drinking, increases the odds that your child gets hooked on alcohol tobacco or illegal drugs. Keeping the MLDA to 21, it would increase the drug the young consummation of illicit drug, which can have serious consequences.
Highway governor is totally against the idea of lowering the MLDA to 18. According to the Journal of safety research, since the MLA came up to 21 we can see a reduction among fatally injured drivers. Surveys tracking alcohol consumption among high school students and young adults found that drinking declined since the late 1970 s, and most of the decline occurred by the early 1990 s. These were the years when states were establishing or reinstating, an MLDA-21. Among fatally injured drivers ages 16–20, the percentage with positive BACs declined from 61% in 1982 to 31% in 1995, a bigger decline than for older age groups; declines occurred among the ages directly affected by raising MLDAs (ages 18–20) and among young teenagers not directly affected (ages 16–17). Almost all studies designed specifically to gauge the effects of drinking age changes show MLDAs of 21 reduce drinking, problematic drinking, drinking and driving, and alcohol-related crashes among young people. Lowering the drinking age to 18 will increase highway crash deaths among young people. Most of the minor car accidents are caused by the inattention (driving while texting) or alcohol. The National Bureau of economies also confirms the fact that the 21 MLDA decrease the number of lives lost in fatal crashes. They made a simulation to see what would be the impact if we lower the drinking age and they came to the point that if we lower it 555youths per year would death.
Also, the health institutes are totally against a lower MLDA. Everyone knows excessive alcohol consumption creates a lot of health problem. Even if the MLDA can’t stop every binge, it prevents a lot of them to drink or be too drunk. They are afraid to be caught by the police, parent or other authorizes. According to the studies of Europeans, countries show that younger people are trying in Europe than the US. If we take the percent of 15-16-year-old reporting drinking in the past 30, we can see that France has a percentage of 64%, but the US has 33%. MLDA protect the young from damage. When consumed in large quantities, alcohol can cause lasting brain damage. According to of health institutes, it is better to delay they contact with alcohol. Based on some scientific experience, the MLDA should go up to 25 years old because it’s the majority age of a mouse and they are the one who had a good respond to alcohol. Young people can have a lot of injuries that can be fatal. Hospitals receive a lot of underage with serious injuries caused by fights or crazy attention related to alcohol. Alcohol has massive damage to the brain; it can modify the structure of function of Central Nervous System by putting it to 21 we delayed their exposition to this brain damage.
According to the pro side, lower the MLDA would put young into more danger. It would increase the death traffic rate, the young injuries, and the young suicide among and expose them to an illegal drug. Their solution is to enforce the MLDA 21.
All the stakeholder pro and con are concerned about the safety and defend their possible by using experience, stimulation, and research to support their opinions and give their solutions.
