In his argument concerning lowering the drinking age, John Cloud claims that legal drinking rights should not be extended to individuals between the ages of eighteen and twenty because it would prove detrimental to them and society. Cloud uses statistics to support his claim of such persons being unable to manage responsibilities associated with alcohol consumption. While Cloud establishes a logical argument with evidence that supports his claim, the tone and structure are founded on traditional assumptions surrounding the issue.
During his claim, Cloud compares statistics from 1984 with those from 2006 to prove that individuals within the eighteen to the twenty-year-old bracket are incapable of responsibly consuming alcohol. Cloud writes,
“…the proportion of those 19-to 22-year-olds who reported consuming five or more drinks in a row in the two weeks before being surveyed fell from 40.7% in 1984 to 38.1% in 2006…In 2006 2,121 people ages 16 to 20 died in alcohol-related fatalities on U.S. roads…in 1984, the figure was 4,612” (254).
Based on the statistics provided, it is easy to come to the logical conclusion that the legal drinking age limit should not be lowered to eighteen. If the author were to begin and end his argument with statistical data, such argument would be functional.
Cloud, however, does not allow statistical data to be the complete basis of his argument. Instead, he structures his claim around assumptions that make it invalid. In his tone, Cloud takes the stance of individuals under twenty-one being children. The author writes,
“If the drinking age is lowered to 18, who is to provide the supervision that McCardell suggests? Surely not bar owners who want to sell them as many drinks as possible. It’s unclear why shifting the venue of drinking from frat houses to bars will help solve the problem of hardcore student drinking” (255).
Persons between ages eighteen and twenty would not need supervision if the legal drinking age were lowered to eighteen because they would be considered responsible adults capable of consuming alcohol with maturity. Claiming that supervision would be necessary for these persons to place eighteen to twenty-year-olds in the category of childhood, which is an irrational statement that is not based on facts.
In addition to assuming that individuals between eighteen and twenty need supervision, Cloud establishes a tone that places all college students in the category of alcohol consumers. Cloud states, “Finally lowering the drinking age to 18 would stop infantilizing college students, but it would probably kill more of them in traffic accidents” (255). Such a statement presumes that all college students consume alcohol. The author does not provide evidence to support such a claim, and without statistical data, it may be considered heresy.
John Cloud claims that lowering the drinking age to eighteen would bring about reckless behavior. Such behavior will inevitably lead to more accidents on the road and have negative effects on society. While Cloud’s argument is supported by statistical facts, the author refutes his claim by assuming that all college students will drink and persons between the ages of eighteen to twenty have not reached adulthood. Although his statistics support the idea of the majority possibly engaging in reckless activity, data does not suggest that all take part in such behavior. Further research concerning the percentage of students who consume alcohol is needed for Cloud’s argument to be effective. Current statistics surrounding alcohol use among eighteen to twenty-year-old persons would also make the author’s argument more persuasive.
Works Cited
Cloud, John. “Should the Drinking Age be Lowered?”. pgs. 254-256. Short Takes. Penfield, Elizabeth.