Drinking Age Argumentative Analysis

Words: 654
Pages: 3

26% of drivers age 15-20 who were killed in motor vehicle crashes in 2014 had been drinking some amount of alcohol. In 1984, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act says that if a state doesn’t pass a law making it illegal for people under 21 to drink or possess alcohol, they would lose up to 10% of their federal highway fundings. 21 should be the legal age of responsibility because you are fully mature at that age. The drinking age should remain at 21 because if it were any lower, teens wouldn’t be able to handle it. Some people think that if you move the age lower, teens won’t feel the need to abuse the right. However, if it was moved lower, teens won’t have to ask older friends to buy it for them they’ll just buy it for themselves. Alexander Wagenaar thinks lowering the drinking age would be disastrous. He says that after the drinking age was set to 21, teen highway deaths dropped 15-20% (Greenblatt 5). In other words, keeping the drinking age at 21 has a better …show more content…
People may say that 18 year olds are capable of doing the same things adults do. But, that is not true. Greenblatt says scientists have realized the part of your brain that makes executive decisions doesn’t develop until 25 (5). Why would you let young adults make life or death decisions if their brains aren’t fully matured? We shouldn’t let teens under 21 make important commitments on their own if that part of their brain isn’t ready for it. Greenblatt states, “What’s important, after all, is not passing a test or meeting an arbitrary age requirement but learning lessons and applying them to real life (30).” Teens haven’t had much experience because most have them have relied on their parents most of their life. Minors are influenced by older people and think they are grown up too and make grown up decisions that they might regret later on. People tend to be more responsible at 21 than 18. Some still depend on their