Drinking_Age_Article_Rebuttal

Running head: Drinking Age Article Rebuttal Drinking Age Article Rebuttal Crystal Sircelj BCOM/275-Business Communications and Critical Thinking February 6, 2012 Daniel Rowe Drinking Age Article Rebuttal The stance that the organization, National Youth Rights Association (NYRA), takes on lowering the drinking age is worrisome in the sense that the outcome of such an action would be devastating to young adults. This “argument” based on emotion has little credibility in the determination of lowering the drinking age. One may consider the use of emotion in persuading others to see why the drinking age should be lowered. This fallacy is dressed as an argument and lacks the credibility and validity to support lowering the drinking age. The NYRA notes that the youth population has become a scapegoat and is ostracized from society and on how to spend their free time because the youth population cannot drink until the age of 21 (National Youth Rights Association, n.d.). This does not provide credible evidence to support changing the current drinking age. Even though the law states that the drinking age is 21, adolescents are still finding ways to break the law. According to National Institutes of Health (NIH) (2007), “underage alcohol consumption over the past decade remain at unacceptably high levels,” (p. 1). Underage consumption continues to occur even with laws and programs in place to warn of the potential dangers that occur at a young age The NYRA uses rhetorical devices that reduce the credibility of the information given. This article downplays the youth population to appear not worthy because they cannot consume alcohol. NYRA (n.d.) notes “the drinking age makes clear that no matter how hard you work, no matter how successful you are, you are still a second-class citizen unfit for association with adults until you reach an arbitrary age,” (par. 7). Because of the rhetorical device used to persuade the readers, the audience will acknowledge the use of such devices to determine the lack of credibility this has. This article is biased in the sense that only one side is given supporting lowering the drinking age. NYRA also fails to mention statistics on the effects of alcohol at a young age. The NIH (2007) notes “each year, approximately 5,000 persons under the age of 21 die from causes related to underage drinking,” (p. 1). Underage drinking has harmful effects on the families of those that are part of this statistic. Lowering the drinking age potentially would increase the number of deaths related to underage consumption. Due to the bias in this article, the “argument” is not valid or credible to support lowering the drinking age. The use of persuasion techniques and appeal that youth are a scapegoat due to the current law lacks the components to a valid argument. The referral to skeptical advertising and major events that tempt people to drink alcohol to support your stance on this issue is a mere attempt to persuade the audience that youths legally should be allowed to drink. The NYRA article fails to show valid and credible evidence to support changing the minimum drinking age for alcohol consumption. References National Institutes of Health. (2007). Fact sheet underage drinking. Retrieved from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/AboutNIAAA/NIAAASponsoredPrograms/Documents/Undera geDrinking.pdf National Youth Rights Association. (n.d.). Drinking age position paper. Retrieved from http://www.youthrights.org/issues/drinking-age/drinking-age-position-paper/