Page 30 - 2021-bfw-shea-all-2e

7
unsurprising. Research from Denmark has voting-age children in their household. A lower
5
shown that parents who live with voting children voting age rejuvenates democracy across
are more likely to vote than parents without generations.
7 Dahlgaard, Jens Olav. “The surprising consequence of lowering the
voting age.” The Washington Post, March 1, 2018. https://www.
washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2018/02/28/the-
surprising-consequence-of-lowering-the-voting-age/?noredirect=on

Changing the World
Understanding and Interpreting

1. Starting with the March for Our Lives protests, Bystricky says that for the teenagers to be able
to win, meaning to succeed in bringing about change, they need votes. What is the connection
between winning and voting that he makes?
2. Paragraphs 2 and 3 include some reasons to support lowering the voting age to 16. Which of
those reasons seem to be the strongest at this point in the argument?
3. Explain what Bystricky means when he writes in paragraph 12, “They develop the habits that
look from a distance like apathy, habits that can linger for years. And then adults use that
disconnection as the reason to keep youth excluded.”
4. Bystricky offers two specific examples of local governments in Maryland considering lowering
their voting age: Takoma Park and Hyattsville. What is similar and different about these
examples, and why did Bystricky likely choose to include both examples?
5. Who do you think is the intended audience for this argument? How do you know, based on
what Bystricky includes?

Analyzing Language, Style, and Structure

1. Vocabulary in Context. In paragraph 17, Bystricky refers to the “architects.” What does this
word mean in the context of his argument? How is his use of the word “architects” similar to or
different from other uses you have encountered?
2. Skill Focus. Reread paragraphs 9 through 12. How does Bystricky use his own
personal experiences as a social studies teacher to refute a counterclaim and support his
position? How was his argument strengthened or weakened with the inclusion of his own
experiences?
3. Paragraphs 6, 7, and 8 all follow the same structure: Bystricky raises a counterargument and
tries to refute it. How successful do you think he is at addressing those who disagree with his
proposal?
4. Look back carefully at some of Bystricky’s word choices, including “voter-suppression crowd,”
(par. 4) “more qualified candidates,” (par. 7) “actual scientists” (par. 8). What do his language
choices reveal about his potential biases?
5. Re-examine Bystricky’s piece looking at the appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) he uses. Which
appeals are most strongly at work in his argument, and why might these have been effective or
not in persuading his audience?
6. Why might Bystricky have chosen to end his piece with the observation by Juwan Blocker and
the research from Denmark?

14
Copyright © Bedford/St. Martin’s. Uncorrected proofs have been used in this sample chapter.
Distributed by BFW Publishers. Strictly for use with its products. Not for redistribution.

sheaall2e_24428_ch05_002_095.indd 14 09/07/20 5:30 PM