Passage Is It Time for Term Limits?
Is It Time for Term Limits?
In 1799, when George Washington’s supporters asked him to consider serving a third term as president of the United States, he declared, “Prudence on my part must arrest any attempt at the well meant, but mistaken views of my friends, to introduce me again into the Chair of Government.” Even though some of his contemporaries advocated for a lifetime appointment for presidents, Washington thought that government officials should not seek to gain unfair power. Only one president has been elected to four terms: Franklin Delano Roosevelt. He was elected to a third term in 1940 and a fourth in 1944 due to the challenges of the Great Depression and World War II. This departure from the rule worried some, and on March 21, 1947, Congress passed the Twenty-Second Amendment to the Constitution, legally limiting the office of president to two four-year terms.
Presidential terms are clearly limited in the Constitution, but for people serving in Congress, this is not the case. Currently, members of the House of Representatives, who serve two-year terms, and Senators, who serve six-year terms, can run for reelection an unlimited number of times. Because of the possibility of unlimited reelections, many people are beginning to believe that limiting congressional terms would benefit our government. Modern surveys conducted by multiple firms consistently show that American citizens of a variety of backgrounds and political leanings approve of the idea of setting term limits for members of Congress.
American citizens are not the only supporters of term limits for Congress. Even some members of Congress themselves have spoken out in support of this change. Former Senator Joe Lieberman, upon his retirement, suggested that Congress “might be healthier and less partisan1 and less rigid if it turned over more often, and term limits are one way to do that.” Michael Olson and Jon Rogowski state in their article “Legislative Term Limits and Polarization” that “proponents of term limits argue that limiting the number of terms legislators can serve in office would reduce the level of partisan conflict, encourage compromise and cooperation, and improve the quality of representation.”
Experienced politicians certainly can build on years of knowledge, but term limit supporters point out that career politicians may base key decisions on their own personal long-term goals. In the article “Term Limitations and the Myth of the Citizen-Legislator,” author Elizabeth Garrett states that “under term limits, a careerist needs to move up the political opportunity structure to remain in elected office, but the probability of unimpeded upward movement decreases as the number of available positions that are perceived as advancements decline.”
While challenging the career politician’s path is seen as a benefit to term limit supporters, there is a possibility that a Congress mostly composed of newcomers could severely affect policy making. Experienced politicians have a deep knowledge of congressional processes, and in addition, politicians who have served together for extended periods have a chance to develop trusting relationships, even across party lines. Molly Reynolds, a congressional expert for the Brookings Institution, says that members who are restricted by term limits “have neither the time nor the incentive to develop the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs. If members don’t have that expertise themselves, they’re more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise.”
In fact, first-time politicians’ susceptibilities to lobbyists, or groups seeking to influence legislators, have actually been put to the test on the state level. In 2006, the National Conference of State Legislatures Study revealed that term limits may increase the influence of lobbyists. In the 1990s, more than twenty states implemented term limits within their state governments. The inexperienced state lawmakers began depending on special-interest groups for their expertise on issues. In the end, many people believed that implementing term limits in the state legislature caused problems, and since then, six states have repealed the limits.
Additionally, those who oppose term limits maintain that the turnover rate in Congress is sufficient. Thomas E. Mann, Senior Fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, notes that every decade, new members replace at least half the members of the House and the Senate, due to retirement or elections. Still, the average length of time in office has mushroomed. For example, the 65th Congress (1917–1919) had an average service time of 5.3 years for members of the House of Representatives and 5.7 years for Senate members. The 114th Congress (2015–2017) had an average of 8.8 years for members of the House and 9.7 years for senators.
Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment to institute congressional term limits? Perhaps one day people will have a chance to vote on the issue.
PERCENTAGE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS REELECTED
| House of Representatives Total seats: 435 | Year | Percentage Reelected |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 83.2 | |
| 1978 | 82.3 | |
| 1998 | 90.8 | |
| 2016 | 87.4 |
| Senate Total seats: 100 | Year | Percentage Reelected |
|---|---|---|
| 1950 | 68.8 | |
| 1978 | 60.0 | |
| 1998 | 89.7 | |
| 2016 | 93.1 |
1partisan: showing a strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular political party
Question
What is the best summary of the discussion of congressional term policy outlined in paragraph 2?
- AWhile all members of Congress can be reelected an unlimited number of times, members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate serve different term lengths; this inequity has become troubling to many American citizens in recent years.
- BThe discrepancy between the president having term limits and members of Congress having unlimited terms has come to seem like a governmental flaw to many American citizens, and this flaw could be remedied by imposing congressional term limits.
- CSupport for congressional term limits is increasing, as shown by recent surveys indicating that American citizens of different backgrounds and political beliefs are beginning to favor implementation of term limits for members of Congress.
- DWhile the Constitution sets a term limit for the office of president, no such limit exists for members of Congress; however, recent surveys show that many American citizens are now in favor of term limits for members of Congress.
Show the answer
Correct answer: D
The question asks for the best summary of the discussion of congressional term policy outlined in paragraph 2.
A. Incorrect. The summary focuses on term lengths that members of the House of Representatives and of the Senate serve rather than on term limits.
B. Incorrect. The summary incorrectly places an emphasis on the idea that some Americans are troubled by the discrepancy between the president having term limits and members of Congress not having term limits. However, it is not the discrepancy that troubles people; it is the fact that members of Congress can be reelected an unlimited number of times.
C. Incorrect. While the summary mentions increased support for term limits, it neglects to mention the contrast between the president having term limits and members of Congress not having term limits.
D. CORRECT. The summary of paragraph 2 accurately presents the idea that members of Congress, in contrast to the president, do not have term limits and calls out the idea that recent surveys show that some Americans think this should change.
Question analysis
In this summary question, students choose the version that best captures paragraph 2 of “Is It Time for Term Limits?”, a passage on whether members of Congress should face limits on how long they serve. The four options are long and reuse the paragraph’s own facts, so students must weigh each one against the paragraph sentence by sentence.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- Above grade 7 Summarizing one short paragraph is grade 7 work, but here each option runs more than 30 words, and the options mix accurate facts with subtle slips, demanding closer comparison than typical grade 7 items.
- Estimated difficulty
- Hard: combines ideas, needs a plan, and has more than one tempting wrong answer.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- A lot to read moderate
- Hard words minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 16+, 165 words.
- Students, last 30 days
- Not enough answers yet to show (it takes 10).
Why it is hard, traps and wrong answers (shows the answer)
Why it is hard
Paragraph 2 is short, but each summary is long and mixes accurate facts with one quiet change. The decisive detail is the third sentence, which gives the reason people want limits, “the possibility of unlimited reelections,” and two wrong summaries swap in another reason: the gap between the president and Congress, or the unequal term lengths. A third is accurate but stops at the surveys, dropping the contrast with the presidency that opens the paragraph.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The flaw summary covers the same ground as the key, limited presidential terms, unlimited congressional ones and public support for change; it differs in blaming the gap between them rather than the unlimited reelections themselves. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
A lot to read moderate Understanding the question
Each choice runs 34 to 39 words and strings two or three claims together with “While,” “however,” “and” or a semicolon, so every clause has to be checked against the paragraph’s four sentences. (Kintsch, 1998; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
The choices use words the paragraph does not, “discrepancy,” “inequity,” “remedied” and “implementation,” and each must be translated back into the paragraph’s plain terms before it can be judged. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Write a one-sentence summary of paragraph 2 that covers each of its four sentences, then compare it with each option, looking for a part left out, a point added or a cause changed.
Traps
- Twists what the text says: Uses the text's topic and ideas but changes what it says: who did it, how much, when, or why.
- Too narrow: A single detail offered as the central idea or a summary, or a summary that keeps minor details and leaves out an essential part.
The wrong answers, classified
A Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Builds on sentence 2’s two-year and six-year terms and calls the difference an inequity that troubles citizens, though the paragraph’s concern is unlimited reelection, not unequal term lengths.
B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Gets the contrast with the president right but makes that discrepancy the cause of public concern, while the paragraph says people favor limits “Because of the possibility of unlimited reelections.”
C Too narrow (King et al., 2004)
Captures the surveys and the growing support in the paragraph’s second half but leaves out its opening contrast between limited presidential terms and unlimited congressional ones.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for the best summary of paragraph 2. A summary is a short version that keeps every main point and adds nothing new. A term is a set time in office. A term limit caps how many terms a person can serve. So first find the main points of paragraph 2.
List the points in paragraph 2
- The Constitution limits the president’s terms, but not the terms of members of Congress.
- Members of Congress can run again “an unlimited number of times.”
- “Because of the possibility of unlimited reelections,” many people think term limits would help.
- Surveys show that Americans of many backgrounds like the idea of term limits for Congress.
Put the points together
The paragraph makes two moves. First, it sets up a contrast: the president has a limit, and Congress does not. Then it reports that many Americans now favor limits for Congress. A good summary needs both parts. It must not change the reason the paragraph gives, which is unlimited reelections.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. It is about how long House and Senate terms last. An inequity is an unfairness, and the paragraph never calls that difference unfair.
- B does not fit. A discrepancy is a mismatch. B says the mismatch with the president troubles people. But the paragraph says the worry comes from unlimited reelections.
- C does not fit. It gets the surveys right, but it leaves out the contrast with the president.
- D fits. It has the contrast with the president and the surveys.
Choose the answer
Watch out: B covers almost the same ground as D, so it is tempting. But it changes the cause of the worry. Only D sums up the paragraph without changing it. So the answer is D.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer. It has the same pieces as D: the president’s limit, Congress’s lack of one, and public support. But B says people are bothered by the mismatch itself. The paragraph says they are bothered by “the possibility of unlimited reelections.” D keeps the facts and the surveys without changing the cause.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
