Mone Mone…

The age limits for getting driving license are

different from place to place and people around the world
are still debating on the topic of necessary ages for driving
license. In many places, the age necessary to obtain a
driver's license is 16 or 17, while many people assume that
this age should be increased to 18. The first passage
mentions that the minimum age for getting a driver's license
is 18. On the other hand, the second passage states that
getting a driver's license does not depend on the age of
person but about the driving experiences. However, I want
to totally stand with the second argument as there are more
detailed statistics, authority figure and reasonable
assumptions in the second argument than the first one.
The first reason why I agree with the second
argument is that it highlights the root cause why obtaining
driver’s license is based on only driving experiences, with
effective facts while the first argument explains the reasons
with the lack of certain statistics. Data from the Insurance
Institute for Highway Safety proves that raising the driving
age cannot prevent the teen-related driving accidents by
describing the detailed statistics. In accordance with their
statistics, the highest dead rate due to driving accidents in
Connecticut where minimum driving age is 16 and in New
Jersey where minimum licensing age is 17 are among 16-
years-old and 17-years-old respectively. This statistic
confirms the point that the age of the driver is not a matter
and the leading cause to accidents is just because of the
inexperience of the drivers.
The next reason for my standpoint is that the
second statement obviously mentions the authority figure.
In this passage, the argument of Kate Willette of Seattle's
Swerve Driving School is included to make the second
argument stronger and more supported. According to her
argument, she says, “it is careful and extensive training,
more than age, that prepares teenagers to be safe drivers”.
That fact can affect the second argument’s certainty and
great sense. On the contrary, the first argument does not
describe any authority figure to prove that its argument is
more sensible.
The final reason is that the second argument
introduces the reasonable assumptions in its conclusion. In
the passage, it clearly explains that teenagers can learn
safely and carefully from their relatives or their parents
when they get a chance to drive legally before age-18. But
they can lose the chance of training by their reliable persons
if the legal age to get the driver’s license is 18 when they
may have already left from home for their different
purposes. As a result, they do not gain any proper training
and become an inexperience driver that in turn leads to
many driving accidents. Thus, we can assume that limiting
licensing age cannot reduce the potential of driving
accidents and people just need enough experiences to get a
license. Conversely, the first passage expresses that the
teen-related car accidents are directly based on the ages of
the drivers.
To conclude, the second statement has more
detailed explanations and practicable suppositions about
the fact that the age is not the major cause in obtaining a
driver’s license and the driving experiences plays a main
role in licensing. Nevertheless, the first statement’s reasons
are influenced with negative and one-sided opinions that
technology distractions and being lower than minimum
driving ages encourage high risks of driving accidents. Thus,
I totally consent with the second argument which is more
credible and convincing to the readers.