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
With which statement would the author of the passage most likely agree?
- AThe expertise of lawmakers should outweigh other considerations when it comes to deciding about term limits.
- BThe decision to institute term limits for Congress is the most pressing issue facing American voters today.
- CThere are compelling reasons both for and against setting term limits for Congress.
- DSpecial-interest groups are likely to have a huge influence on whether term limits are set.
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks with which statement the author of the passage would most likely agree.
A. Incorrect. While the author presents a good description of why expertise is important for lawmakers, the author does not give this argument greater weight than other arguments in the passage.
B. Incorrect. While paragraph 2 does state that “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,” the author never suggests that term limits are the most pressing issue facing voters today and never compares this issue to any other issues.
C. CORRECT. Given that the author presents strong arguments and supporting evidence both for and against setting term limits, the author would most likely agree that both sides have compelling reasons supporting their positions. The passage ends with the author’s suggestions that “perhaps one day people will have a chance to vote on the issue” (paragraph 8). The author never argues for a particular side of the argument.
D. Incorrect. While the author discusses in paragraphs 5 and 6 the dangers of special-interest groups having excessive influence on lawmakers, the author never suggests that special-interest groups may influence the issue of term limits itself.
Question analysis
Students must decide which statement the author of “Is It Time for Term Limits?” would most likely agree with, which means inferring the author’s point of view on congressional term limits. Each statement picks up a topic the passage discusses, from lawmakers’ expertise to special-interest groups, so students must judge how far the author’s own words go rather than how familiar the topic sounds.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 A grade 7 standard asks students to analyze where an author stands in an informational text. Here that position must be pieced together from the passage as a whole rather than read from one sentence, and the dense political vocabulary adds reading load.
- Estimated difficulty
- Straightforward: two steps or one careful reading.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 3, strategic thinking · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- Reading between the lines moderate
- Evidence in several places minor
- Evidence
- Answered from the whole text
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 73 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
Each statement picks up a topic the passage discusses, expertise, public opinion or special-interest groups, so each sounds connected to it. The question is how far the author goes, and the author goes no further than laying out both sides and leaving the decision to voters. Students who weigh the space given to expertise, or who remember lobbyists and influence without the direction of that influence, credit the author with a stance the passage never takes.
Reading between the lines moderate Working it out
The author never states a position; it has to be read from how the passage is built, arguments for limits in paragraphs 2–4, doubts about them in 5–7, and an open question at the end. (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994; Kintsch, 1998)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
The evidence for the author’s balance is the whole passage, from the surveys and Lieberman on one side to Reynolds, the state study and Mann on the other, closing on a vote that may come “one day.” (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
Strategy: For each statement, find where the passage touches its idea and check whether the author actually commits to it; a statement the author would accept must fit the passage as a whole, not just one paragraph.
Traps
- Too broad or too strong: A choice overstates, generalizes, or uses absolute words the text does not support.
- Reversed relationship: Cause and effect, or the order of events, turned around.
The wrong answers, classified
A Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Notices how much space paragraphs 5 and 6 give to lawmakers’ expertise, but the author never ranks it above other concerns, such as partisanship or careerists’ goals, raised elsewhere.
B Too broad or too strong (King et al., 2004)
Turns broad public approval, shown by the surveys in paragraph 2, into the claim that term limits are the most pressing issue for voters, though the passage compares them with no other issue.
D Reversed relationship (King et al., 2004)
Turns the influence around: paragraph 6 says term limits could raise special-interest groups’ sway over new lawmakers, not that the groups would sway the decision to set limits.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks what the author would most likely agree with. The author never says I think or picks a side out loud. So you have to read the author’s view from how the passage is built and how it ends.
Look at how the passage is built
- Paragraphs 2–4 give reasons for term limits: public support, Lieberman’s view, and worries about career politicians.
- Paragraphs 5–7 give reasons against: lawmakers need experience, a state study, and enough change already.
Each side gets experts and evidence. The author gives each side about the same space.
Look at how it ends
Paragraph 8 asks, “Should Congress pass a constitutional amendment to institute congressional term limits?” It answers only, “Perhaps one day people will have a chance to vote on the issue.” The author leaves the question open and never picks a side. That suggests the author sees strong reasons on both sides.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. The author explains why expertise matters, but never ranks it above other concerns.
- B does not fit. The passage never compares term limits with other issues voters face.
- C fits. Compelling means strong and convincing. The author gives such reasons for and against.
- D does not fit. It turns the passage around. The passage says limits might give special-interest groups more sway over new lawmakers. It never says the groups would sway whether limits are set.
Choose the answer
Watch out: A is tempting because paragraphs 5 and 6 spend a lot of time on expertise. But giving a point space is not the same as saying it matters most. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
A is the closest wrong answer. The author does explain why experienced lawmakers matter. But the author gives just as much care to the other side, such as Lieberman’s hope for a “less partisan” Congress. The passage ends with an open question, not a ruling. That balance fits C, not A.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
