1A, 3A and 4A
EOC Part A Practice
“Why the Voting Age Should Be 17”
Click the article to go to the College Board Scoring Guide. Look through the scoring guide as you compare your own scoring to what the scoring guide says needs to be included to recieve the highest score for each Question
Scoring Guide
Question 1: Identify the author's argument, main idea, or thesis.
Each question has a high, medium and low sample response
Question 2: Explain the author's line of reasoning.
Question 3: Evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence.
SAMPLE RESPONSES
Click on the document to go to the full Common Mistakes Tip Sheet
common mistakes
Medium (3–4 points) Levine starts by saying that the current voting age of 18 might actually be a bad time to start voting because 18-year-olds are often in transition and don't show up to vote. He claims that 17 is better because students are still in high school where they can learn about the issues in civics class. He also uses evidence to show that young people aren't necessarily all Democrats, so it wouldn't be a partisan move. Finally, he says that if the government affects you, you should get to vote.
Low (1–2 points) The author says we should lower the voting age to 17. He says that 18-year-olds don't vote as much as they should, which makes turnout go down. He also mentions that Scotland and some towns in Maryland have already tried lowering the age.
High (6 points) The author develops his argument by first establishing a historical and moral precedent, noting that the 26th Amendment was passed on the principle that those old enough to be drafted are mature enough to vote. He then transitions to a psychological claim: voting is a habit. He uses research from political scientists like Mark Franklin to show that 18 is an unstable age for starting this habit because of low turnout, whereas 17-year-olds are often still in stable environments like home and school.Levine further connects these points by addressing potential counterarguments regarding maturity and political bias. He cites studies showing 16-year-olds have comparable political knowledge to 21-year-olds and provides data suggesting that lowering the age does not inherently benefit one political party. He concludes by synthesizing these claims into three final "ways" the reform helps democracy: connecting learning to action, expanding the long-term electorate, and giving a voice to those impacted by local policy.
Low (1–2 points) TThe author uses some evidence, like how only 5.2 percent of 18-year-olds in California voted. He also mentions the 26th Amendment and how it was passed quickly. Most of his evidence is just names of people and places that agree with him, which helps show that he isn't the only one with this idea.
Medium (3–4 points) The evidence is mostly effective because the author uses many different studies from professors and political scientists to back up what he says. For example, he uses a study from Rutgers-Camden to prove that 16-year-olds know as much as 21-year-olds. He also uses real examples of places that have lowered the voting age, like Takoma Park. While the evidence is good, he doesn't provide a lot of detail on the "long-term" results since some of these changes are very recent.
High (6 points) Levine uses a diverse array of evidence, including historical facts, academic research, and real-world examples, which makes his argument highly effective. He cites specific political scientists (Plutzer, Franklin, Campbell, Holbein, and Hillygus) and professors (Hart and Atkins) to provide scholarly authority for his claims about voting habits and adolescent political knowledge. This data-driven approach is complemented by current "proof of concept" examples from Scotland and Maryland, which demonstrate the feasibility of his proposal. However, a slight weakness is the reliance on the Scottish independence referendum as evidence of high turnout, as a high-stakes national referendum may not perfectly predict turnout for routine municipal elections. Despite this, his use of data to debunk the "partisan advantage" myth is particularly strong because it uses specific statistics regarding "preregistration" to support his claim that the reform is pro-democracy rather than pro-Democrat.
- High (3)
- Peter Levine argues that the United States should lower the national voting age to 17 because it would foster lifelong voting habits, allow for better civic integration within schools and homes, and uphold the democratic principle that those affected by government policy deserve a voice.
- Medium (2)
- The author believes that 17-year-olds should be allowed to vote because they are just as informed as 21-year-olds and it will help increase the number of people who participate in our democracy.
- Low (1)
- This article is about how the voting age was changed to 18 in 1971 and why we should think about changing it again to 17 or 16.
EOC Part A Practice
EMILY HAECKER
Created on April 27, 2026
Start designing with a free template
Discover more than 1500 professional designs like these:
View
Magazine dossier
View
Momentum: Onboarding Escape Game
View
Momentum: Manager Guide
View
Wizardry Letter
View
Search Bar Card
View
Piñata
View
Microlearning: When to Use Chat, Meetings or Email
Explore all templates
Transcript
1A, 3A and 4A
EOC Part A Practice
“Why the Voting Age Should Be 17”
Click the article to go to the College Board Scoring Guide. Look through the scoring guide as you compare your own scoring to what the scoring guide says needs to be included to recieve the highest score for each Question
Scoring Guide
Question 1: Identify the author's argument, main idea, or thesis.
Each question has a high, medium and low sample response
Question 2: Explain the author's line of reasoning.
Question 3: Evaluate the effectiveness of the evidence.
SAMPLE RESPONSES
Click on the document to go to the full Common Mistakes Tip Sheet
common mistakes
Medium (3–4 points) Levine starts by saying that the current voting age of 18 might actually be a bad time to start voting because 18-year-olds are often in transition and don't show up to vote. He claims that 17 is better because students are still in high school where they can learn about the issues in civics class. He also uses evidence to show that young people aren't necessarily all Democrats, so it wouldn't be a partisan move. Finally, he says that if the government affects you, you should get to vote.
Low (1–2 points) The author says we should lower the voting age to 17. He says that 18-year-olds don't vote as much as they should, which makes turnout go down. He also mentions that Scotland and some towns in Maryland have already tried lowering the age.
High (6 points) The author develops his argument by first establishing a historical and moral precedent, noting that the 26th Amendment was passed on the principle that those old enough to be drafted are mature enough to vote. He then transitions to a psychological claim: voting is a habit. He uses research from political scientists like Mark Franklin to show that 18 is an unstable age for starting this habit because of low turnout, whereas 17-year-olds are often still in stable environments like home and school.Levine further connects these points by addressing potential counterarguments regarding maturity and political bias. He cites studies showing 16-year-olds have comparable political knowledge to 21-year-olds and provides data suggesting that lowering the age does not inherently benefit one political party. He concludes by synthesizing these claims into three final "ways" the reform helps democracy: connecting learning to action, expanding the long-term electorate, and giving a voice to those impacted by local policy.
Low (1–2 points) TThe author uses some evidence, like how only 5.2 percent of 18-year-olds in California voted. He also mentions the 26th Amendment and how it was passed quickly. Most of his evidence is just names of people and places that agree with him, which helps show that he isn't the only one with this idea.
Medium (3–4 points) The evidence is mostly effective because the author uses many different studies from professors and political scientists to back up what he says. For example, he uses a study from Rutgers-Camden to prove that 16-year-olds know as much as 21-year-olds. He also uses real examples of places that have lowered the voting age, like Takoma Park. While the evidence is good, he doesn't provide a lot of detail on the "long-term" results since some of these changes are very recent.
High (6 points) Levine uses a diverse array of evidence, including historical facts, academic research, and real-world examples, which makes his argument highly effective. He cites specific political scientists (Plutzer, Franklin, Campbell, Holbein, and Hillygus) and professors (Hart and Atkins) to provide scholarly authority for his claims about voting habits and adolescent political knowledge. This data-driven approach is complemented by current "proof of concept" examples from Scotland and Maryland, which demonstrate the feasibility of his proposal. However, a slight weakness is the reliance on the Scottish independence referendum as evidence of high turnout, as a high-stakes national referendum may not perfectly predict turnout for routine municipal elections. Despite this, his use of data to debunk the "partisan advantage" myth is particularly strong because it uses specific statistics regarding "preregistration" to support his claim that the reform is pro-democracy rather than pro-Democrat.