Question

calista is writing an argumentative essay about curfews for minors. which evidence best supports calistas claim that implementing a curfew law in her town would yield positive results?
a. since minors would be fined for violating a curfew, they will be motivated to come in early, reducing the risk of being involved in a dangerous situation that would typically happen late at night.
b. although some studies suggest that minors will ignore legal requirements concerning curfews, most cities with existing curfews have seen a reduction in crime as well as an improvement in teen sleep.
c. when teens go home at a reasonable hour, parents feel more secure about their children, and law enforcement has much less work to do with fewer children out in the streets causing problems.
d. while some towns have seen that the exemptions to curfew laws—such as teens traveling to and from work—cause minors to be out anyway, statistics suggest that the most dangerous time to be out is 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.

Explanation:

• Option A only focuses on minors being motivated by fines, which is a narrow view.
• Option B provides evidence from existing cities with curfews showing positive results (reduction in crime and improvement in teen sleep), which is strong and relevant.
• Option C is more about parents' feelings and law enforcement's workload rather than direct positive results of the curfew law itself.
• Option D mainly talks about exemptions and dangerous times rather than positive outcomes of the curfew law.

Answer:

B. Although some studies suggest that minors will ignore legal requirements concerning curfews, most cities with existing curfews have seen a reduction in crime as well as an improvement in teen sleep.