Which line or lines in this editorial show faulty reasoning? save teenage driving: a call to arms an editorial by sophie behrend recently, house representative ken weaver of washington state proposed a bill (house bill r-9687b) that would raise the legal driving age to 21. you heard me right—congress is considering raising the driving age to 21. if you are like me, such a law would be a catastrophe and would only mean one thing: the end of life as we know it. representative weaver claims that his bill is motivated by "safety." he argues, “nearly half of all accidents involve people under the age of 21." representative weaver also claims, "raising the driving age would mean raising the level of safety on america's roads." but i would ask representative weaver: do not "nearly half" of all accidents involve men, and would not the streets be safer, then, if male drivers were outlawed? and what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too? weaver also claims that "a majority of seat belt violations" are the fault of the under-21 crowd. but let me ask you this: do people under the age of 21 really wear their seat belts less often than older people, or are they just caught more often? that is, we know the police have their eye on the teenagers, but are they looking at the adults as well? but i can hear it now: "if teenagers are all so safe, why do they have such high accident rates? " here's a possible inexperience. like anybody who is inexperienced, the teenage driver must suffer through a legitimate period of self-doubt and skills acquisition. chances are, if the driving age were moved to 21, we would see 21- to 24-year-olds causing the largest percentage of safety problems—not because of a maturity problem, mind you, but just because they would be inexperienced at driving.

The lines which show faulty reasoning are the following: And what about the percentage of accidents that occur on paved roads—should we do away with paved roads too?

This argument is faulty because it isn't logical. Paved roads are not the cause of accidents like the writer wanted to underline with the previous example about men drivers, so there is no point in "doing away with them". Also, the rhetoric question "should we do away with paved roads too?" reveals faulty reasoning because it is an extreme point made by the writer in order to emphasize his/her point but it's something which is not possible.  

1. read the following excerpt from franklin d. roosevelt's "fireside chat 19":

on the other side of the picture, we must learn also to know that guerilla warfare against the germans in, let us say serbia or norway, us; that a successful russian offensive against the germans us; and that british successes on land or sea in any part of the world strengthen our hands.

remember always that germany and italy, regardless of any formal declaration of war, consider themselves at war with the united states at this moment just as much as they consider themselves at war with britain or russia. and germany puts all the other republics of the americas into the same category of enemies. the people of our sister republics of this hemisphere can be honored by that fact.  

the true goal we seek is far above and beyond the ugly field of battle. when we resort to force, as now we must, we are determined that this force shall be directed toward ultimate good as well as against immediate evil. we americans are not destroyers — we are builders.

analyze the effectiveness of this excerpt. how does it function within the speech as a whole? how does the structure of the excerpt to convey the speech's purpose and key points? support your argument with evidence from the speech. (10 points)

when reagan refers to freedom in this passage, he uses repetition as a rhetorical device. repetition is when the same words or phrases are repeated few times to make an idea stronger and more unforgettable. in this case, when he talks about freedom, he starts the sentence whit this word followed by a verb in present simple and after an advantage of being free.

explanation: