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. 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.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.

Explanation:

• Option A: Talks about exemptions and dangerous time but doesn't directly show positive results of curfew law implementation.
• Option B: General statement about teens going home early but no data - like reduction in crime or improvement in sleep.
• Option C: Mentions motivation due to fines but no comprehensive positive results like in Option D.
• Option D: States that most cities with curfews have seen reduction in crime (a public - safety positive) and improvement in teen sleep (a health - related positive), which are clear positive results of implementing curfew laws.

Answer:

D. 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.