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. 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.
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. 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:

Calista's claim is that implementing a curfew law in her town would yield positive results. Option D provides evidence that existing curfews have led to a reduction in crime and an improvement in teen sleep. This directly supports the idea that a curfew law would have positive outcomes. Option A only mentions minors being fined and motivated to come in early, but it doesn't clearly show overall positive results like crime reduction. Option B talks about exemptions which may not support the claim of positive results. Option C focuses on teens going home at a reasonable hour and parents' feelings, but it doesn't strongly support the broad positive results (like crime reduction) that Calista's claim likely implies.

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.