I need help identifying the following things in the article.
1. Identify any examples of bias presented by the author.
2. Identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous.
3. Do you find the source credible?
4. Identify and name any rhetorical devices used by the author.
5. Identify and name any fallacies used by the author.
6. Does the author use moral reasoning?
----- article -----
Underage drinking is a serious national problem with substantial social and economic
consequences. Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey argue in the following
viewpoint that the establishment of a minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) of
twenty-one represents the single most effective approach to curbing underage
drinking. They maintain that the age-21 MLDA has saved over seventeen thousand
lives since 1975 and could be even more beneficial if it was strictly enforced.
Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey are researchers in the division of
epidemiology of the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota.
As you read, consider the following questions:
1. According to the authors, when did most states establish an MLDA of twenty-one?
What penalty did states suffer if they did not raise their MLDA to twenty-one when the federal
government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act in 1984, according to Wagenaar and Toomey?
2.
The minimum legal drinking age (MLDA) is the most well-studied alcohol control policy in the United
States. The intention of this policy is to lower alcohol use and its associated problems among
youth. Following Prohibition, most states established an age 21 MLDA. During the early 1970s, a
trend toward lowering the MLDA to age 18, 19 or 20 began in the United States, providing many
natural experiments. As a result of research evidence indicating that traffic crashes among youth
increased following lowering of the legal age, a citizens' effort began urging states to raise the
MLDA back to age 21. In 1984, the federal government enacted the Uniform Drinking Age Act,
which provided for the withholding of federal highway funds from states that failed to increase their
MLDA. By 1988, all states had established an age-21 MLDA. The increase in MLDA across
multiple states again provided researchers with many natural experiments to assess effects of
these policy changes on alcohol consumption and related problems among youth....
Compared with a wide range of other programs and efforts to reduce drinking among teenagers,
increasing the legal age for purchase and consumption of alcohol to 21 appears to have been the
most successful effort to date.... The magnitude of effects of the age-21 policy may appear small,
particularly in studies using weak research designs and having low levels of statistical power.
However, even modest effects applied to the entire population of youth result in very large societal
benefits. For example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, using an average
estimated reduction in traffic fatalities due to the legal drinking age of 13%, calculates that the
age-21 policy prevented 846 deaths in 1997 and prevented a total of 17,359 deaths since 1975.
A large proportion of studies of the MLDA found a statistically significant, inverse relationship
between the MLDA and alcohol consumption and alcohol-related problems (48% of the higher
quality studies). Only a small number of studies found a statistically significant, positive relationship
between the MLDA and various outcomes (1% of the higher quality studies). A large number of
studies found no statistically significant relationship. In addition to differences in quality of research
design and analyses, several other factors may account for variability in results across studies,
including size of sample and extent of change in policy. The power to detect a statistically
significant effect is directly influenced by the size of the sample. In some states, the MLDA was
raised only 1 year, from age 20 to age 21; in other states it was raised from age 18 to 21. Studies
of policy changes that affect smaller segments of the population may be less likely to detect effects
simply because of reduced statistical power when analyzing fewer data. Given potential design and
analysis limitations in any single study, the large proportion of MLDA studies that found a significant
inverse relationship with various outcomes gives strong support for the effectiveness of the MLDA.
Strict Enforcement of the MLDA Would Save More Lives
It is difficult to estimate accurately the effects of the drinking age specifically on college students.
Unfortunately, most studies focusing on college students have been based on weaker crosssectional
designs or limited nonprobability samples. Only 9% of the college-specific studies (6 of
64) used a higher quality research design. Of these higher quality studies, none found a statistically
significant inverse relationship between the MLDA and consumption or alcohol-related problems. In
addition, of these 6 analyses, 4 included a sample of students at only one university. Although it is
possible that the age-21 policy has been less effective on college campuses than among the
general youth population, existing research clearly does not suggest that the age-21 MLDA has
increased problems among college students. However, more studies that use robust research
designs would be needed to assess accurately the effect of the MLDA specifically on college
campuses. In addition, studies of potential mediating factors on campuses are also needed. For
example, how well are MLDA laws enforced on college campuses? How easily can underage
students obtain alcohol on and around campus? If one assumes that the MLDA is less effective on
college campuses, perhaps it is due to lax enforcement and particularly easy access to alcohol by
underage youth in such settings.
Finally, despite progress in recent decades, most youth continue to have access to alcohol, most
drink at least occasionally, and a substantial fraction regularly become intoxicated. The social costs
from injuries, deaths and damage associated with underage drinking remain high. The benefits of
the legal drinking age of 21 have occurred with little or no active enforcement in most areas. Simply
by increasing enforcement levels and deterring adults from selling or providing alcohol to minors,
even more injuries and deaths related to alcohol use among youth are likely to be prevented each
year.
----- citation -----
Wagenaar, Alexander C., and Traci L. Toomey. "Minimum Drinking-Age Laws Are
Effective." Opposing Viewpoints: Alcohol. Karen F. Balkin. San Diego: Greenhaven
Press, 2004. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Gale. Apollo Library. 25 May. 2008
I have identified that the article is biased towards keeping the MLDA the same.
What specific evidence do you see that shows this bias?
If you try to answer the other questions, we'll be glad to critique them.
1. I believe that the author has a bias because of the following quote.
"Compared with a wide range of other programs and efforts to reduce drinking among teenagers, increasing the legal age for purchase and consumption of alcohol to 21 appears to have been the most successful effort to date..." (Wagenaar & Toomey).
2. I struggled with coming up with vague or ambiguous areas. The only part of the article that was confusing to me is when the author begins stating statics.
3. It was also hard for me to find if the source is creditable. It seems that most if not all of the statics come from Rutgers Center of Alcohol Studies.
4. I identified dysphemism when the article states that “Finally, despite progress in recent decades, most youth continue to have access to alcohol, most drink at least occasionally, and a substantial fraction regularly become intoxicated” (Wagenaar & Toomey).
5. Although I tried, I was unable to come up with any fallacies.
6. I am confused when it comes to moral reasoning.
Can anyone help me find the answers to these questions.
Thanks
To identify examples of bias presented by the author, you can look for the use of loaded or emotionally charged language, one-sided arguments, or selective presentation of information that supports a particular viewpoint. In the given article, there are no explicit examples of bias presented by the author.
To identify any areas that are vague or ambiguous, you can look for unclear or imprecise language, lack of specific details, or unclear connections between ideas. In this article, there are no clear areas that are vague or ambiguous. The author presents the information in a clear and logical manner.
Regarding the credibility of the source, to make an assessment, you can consider the credentials of the authors and the publication they are affiliated with, as well as their expertise and the quality of their research. In this case, the authors, Alexander C. Wagenaar and Traci L. Toomey, are researchers in the division of epidemiology of the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. Their affiliation suggests a level of expertise in the subject matter. The article is published in the Opposing Viewpoints series, which is a well-known resource for presenting various perspectives on controversial topics. However, a more detailed assessment of the credibility would require further examination of the authors' research methodologies and the peer-review processes involved in publishing the article.
To identify rhetorical devices used by the author, you can look for persuasive techniques, such as the use of evidence, appeals to emotion or authority, rhetorical questions, and repetition. In the given article, the authors mainly rely on presenting statistical evidence, such as the number of lives saved and the reduction in traffic fatalities, to support their argument. They also use logical reasoning to explain the relationship between the legal drinking age and alcohol consumption among youth.
To identify fallacies used by the author, you can look for logical errors in reasoning, such as flawed arguments, false analogies, or appeals to emotion instead of facts. In this article, there are no obvious fallacies used by the author. The arguments are based on empirical evidence and logical reasoning.
To determine if the author uses moral reasoning, you can look for ethical considerations or appeals to moral values in their argumentation. In this article, the author does not explicitly use moral reasoning. The focus is primarily on presenting empirical evidence and the effectiveness of the minimum legal drinking age policy in reducing alcohol-related problems among youth.