2. What is the main evidence that Voas provides to support his claim? Research shows that back when some states still had a minimum drinking age of 18, youths in those states who were under 21 drank more and continued to drink more as adults in their early 20s. In states where the drinking age was 21, teenagers drank less and continue to drink less through their early 20s.
3. Voas finds little in common between "going to war and being allowed to drink (5). Where else (and how effectively) does he use comparison and contrast to support his argument? "I did it when I was a kid, and I'm OK."
4. What is Ruth Engs's claim? Where does she state it most clearly and directly? She claimed that the drinking age should be lowered to 18 and 19. She states it mainly in her opening paragraph. 5. Engs isn't arguing that people under 21 should drink more. So why does she think lowering the MLDA is a good idea? What specific reasons does she give? She thinks that the age limit on deinking is not working. People under the age of 21 are going to drink regardless. Majority of college students still drink in an irresponsible manner.
6. Eng compares the MLDA law to the prohibition laws of the 1920s, in which all alcohol was banned in the United States. Do you think this is an effective comparison? Why or Why not? Is it a fair one? Explain. Yes because she compares in the 1920 drinking was banned but it didn’t work.