No Driving Licenses for People Under 18 - Argumentation/ Persuasion Essay

Hi all,
I wrote an essay which is persuasion. I will post what I wrote, but plz help me edit it so that it looks better ..
Plz add some writing tricks and edit it ... I don't think it is interesting. so plz help

========================================

Topic :::::: No Driving Licenses for People Under 18

Do you know that one of the leading causes of the death of many teenagers is car accidents? "National Teen Driving Statistics" showed that 16-year-old teenagers are three times more likely to die in car accidents than the average of all drivers. In 2002, 40.8 billion dollar was the estimated economic impact of auto accidents involving drivers who are 15-18 years old. The possibility of parents losing control of their children, the immaturity of teenagers, and the history of the teenagers' accidents and deaths are three main reasons why driving licenses should not be given to people under 18.

First, when adolescents get their driving licenses, parents will not be able to guide them. Most of these children are in high school or in college; they tend to be looking for freedom. As soon as they get their driving licenses, they will have the feeling of being independent and free. This results in more self-confidence than is warranted. Their parents will not have control of their children the way they want. And they will no longer able to guide them the way they want anymore. Matt Sundeen, an attorney and program principal in the transportation program of the National Conference of State Legislatures, reported that "When the children are at the age of 15 or 16, they do not have enough experience in life, and without their parents' guidance, these young people can easily go in wrong directions; to drugs and alcohol, for example." For example, Alicia Betancourt, sixteen years old high school girl, got her driving license. Then she started to go out without her parents knowledge. In June, 2008, she got caught with a group of young boys and girls because of being drugs addict.

Second, adolescents generally are not good drivers because they tend to be childish and less mature. An article written by Garry Boulard, an American journalist and biographer, indicates my hypothesis had some truth in it. Boulard states the "inexperienced teenagers are usually more distracted than other drivers and they are less likely to react quickly to the dangers on the road." Also, young people are known to be adventurous. As soon as they sit behind the wheel, they tend to show off and speed up. This is particularly true of young men. They are prone to take risks. In addition, drivers under the age of 18 distract themselves while driving with various activities, such as messaging, watching videos, and even reading books. Many studies done by Geico, an insurance company, show that drivers between the ages of 15 and 18 are more likely to use the phone while driving than older drivers. Using the cell phone has caused many accidents in the US.

Finally, the most important point is the high number of accidents and deaths of teenagers because of driving. Statistics have shown that teenagers have a higher chance of accidents. According to American Automobile Association (AAA) studies conducted between 1995 and 2004, crashes that involve 15 to17-year-old drivers took the lives of 30,917 people nationwide. It also showed that during the decade of the 1990s, 63,000 youngsters between the age of 15 and 18 died in traffic crashes. This means that more than 120 children die every week. In 2002, the National Center for Statistics and Analysis reported that 8,278 adolescents were involved in fatal crashes. In 2003 alone, teenagers were involved in an estimated 1.5 million accidents. Those studies show that the number of children who die because of car accidents is increasing.

Opponents of the idea claim that these teenagers are old enough to drive a car to school and do their own activities by themselves. Also, they are no longer considered as children. These criticisms are all valid, but they are only part of the story. After reading the statistics and the reasons, there is no intelligent person who will agree with these criticisms.

In conclusion, there are many reasons why people under 18 years of age shouldn't get their driving licenses. The possibility of parents losing control over their children, the immaturity of teenagers, and the history of the teenagers' accidents and deaths are the main reasons. Statistics show that people under 18 are more likely to die than older people. Those accidents could not only kill those teenagers, but also can take the lives of many innocent civilians. Many people's lives might be in danger by giving those immature people licenses to drive. The government should think about the huge risk of giving these children license to drive.

Here's an idea for your conclusion: The state of New Jersey recently raised the minimum age for getting a license from 16 to 17 and, if I am recalling recent news stories about the anniversary of this change correctly, has obtained the desired drop in accidents. You could find one of those new stories and cite this as an example of a successful application of the principles from which you are arguing.

Whereas this couldn't possibly happen to 18 year-olds just leaving high school and having the freedom of being away from parental supervision for the first time?


This is a stronger point. Do some research and quote researchers who have shown that teenagers are biologically programmed to take more risks than older people (it's not just a matter of experience).

"Statistics have shown that teenagers have a higher chance of accidents." So what are the numbers for other age groups (you only talk about teenagers in the rest of the paragraph) If you look at other countries with a higher driving age, do you find that the youngest legal group of drivers still has the highest accident rate (in other words, are new drivers going to be the most accident prone regardless of what age they start driving).


They aren't good criticisms, though. See my comments on your other points for how the other side might try to counter you. Also, you can't say that the criticisms are valid, but that no intelligent person would agree with them, unless you believe you are unintelligent. Besides, you shouldn't be insulting people who disagree with you, as they are the people you are trying to persuade, and few people are persuaded by being called stupid.


Make sure to double check the statistics, though. If the only reduction has been in the number of 16 year-olds involved in car accidents, then the numbers won't be very convincing. Also, if the numbers are looking at teenager driving accidents only, you'll run into a variation of the same problem. The overall accident rate has to have declined, as a percentage of the driving population. This may actually be the case, but you should make sure -- reporters aren't noted for their grasp of statistics.

Haha, I would argue that kids should be allowed the right to drive as early as 15 if they pass a comprehensive exam and/or evaluation that demonstrates they have the ability to drive in almost as safe a manner as adults.

The fact of the matter is, teens have very poor judgment and act irrationally much of the time.

If you devised a tedious exam that weeded out anyone but the most dedicated, you could possibly have a low enough driving age, and not at the expense of having dangerous drivers out on the road.