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
According to paragraph 5, serving more terms improves politicians’ effectiveness by
- Amotivating them to learn the congressional processes necessary to create legislation.
- Bencouraging them to collaborate with politicians of the opposing party in order to pass legislation.
- Callowing them to gain expertise and develop strong political relationships.
- Denabling them to create new policies while fostering their own careers.
Show the answer
Correct answer: C
The question asks how, according to paragraph 5, serving more terms improves politicians’ effectiveness.
A. Incorrect. Paragraph 5 does not say that serving more terms motivates politicians to learn congressional processes, only that politicians restricted by term limits are not motivated to gain expertise.
B. Incorrect. While paragraph 5 states that serving more terms helps a politician “develop trusting relationships, even across party lines,” it does not explain how serving more terms improves politicians’ effectiveness.
C. CORRECT. Paragraph 5 makes it clear that “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.” Therefore, serving more terms helps experienced politicians gain expertise.
D. Incorrect. While paragraph 4 states that “term limit supporters point out that career politicians may base key decisions on their own personal long-term goals,” paragraph 5 does not mention this idea or state that creating new policies while fostering their own careers would improve their effectiveness.
Question analysis
Paragraph 5 of “Is It Time for Term Limits?” explains how serving more terms can make politicians more effective, and this key-details question asks what the paragraph says those benefits are. It sets out what experienced lawmakers bring and what newcomers lack, and the options echo its wording in different ways, so only careful matching will separate them.
- Grade level
- Grade 7 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Finding what a paragraph states is routine grade 7 work, and the question names the paragraph. Its formal wording and an expert’s quotation phrased in the negative make the stated benefits a little harder to pick out.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly understand
- What makes it hard
- A very close wrong answer moderate
- The right answer is reworded minor
- Complex sentences minor
- Evidence
- Answered from one paragraph or stanza
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 14, 57 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 5 states the two gains of long service in one sentence, deep knowledge and trusting relationships, and the answer simply restates both. The wrong choices each bend one part: the incentive Reynolds says term-limited members lack becomes a motive for learning, and the chance to build trust across party lines becomes collaboration to pass laws. Matching each choice against that one sentence, rather than against the expert’s negative wording, keeps students on track.
A very close wrong answer moderate Choosing the answer
The cross-party choice shares the key’s second benefit, relationships built over time, but turns paragraph 5’s “chance to develop trusting relationships” into deliberate teamwork to pass laws and drops the expertise. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The key turns “deep knowledge of congressional processes” and “trusting relationships” into expertise and strong political relationships, while wrong choices echo “congressional processes,” recast the cross-party trust as teamwork, or borrow paragraph 4’s careers. (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Complex sentences minor Understanding the question
Reynolds’s quotation describes the opposite case, members who “have neither the time nor the incentive” to gain expertise, so the benefits of long service must be read by flipping a sentence about their absence. (Abedi & Lord, 2001; Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Messick, 1989)
Strategy: Reread paragraph 5 and note, in your own words, what it says long service gives politicians, then compare each option with your notes word by word.
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.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
- Wrong part of the text: A choice is true of another paragraph, stanza or speaker than the one asked about.
The wrong answers, classified
A Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Flips Reynolds’s point that term-limited members lack “the incentive” and concludes that long service motivates learning, but the paragraph names knowledge already gained, not a motive, and omits relationships.
B Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Builds on “trusting relationships, even across party lines,” but turns a chance to build trust into working with the other party to pass legislation, and leaves out the expertise long service brings.
D Wrong part of the text (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Recalls paragraph 4’s career politicians with “personal long-term goals,” a point term-limit supporters raise against them, and mistakes it for a benefit of long service in paragraph 5.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks for a key detail. According to paragraph 5, how does serving more terms make politicians better at their jobs? Look only at paragraph 5, and find every benefit it names.
Find the benefits in paragraph 5
Paragraph 5 says “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.” Congressional processes are the steps Congress follows to get work done. Extended periods means long stretches of time.
See the other side of it
Molly Reynolds adds that members held back by term limits have “neither the time nor the incentive” to build “the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs.” Expertise means special skill and knowledge. An incentive is a reason to try. Turn that around: members who serve longer have time to gain that expertise. So paragraph 5 names two benefits of long service, expertise and trust.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. The paragraph says experienced politicians already “have a deep knowledge of congressional processes.” It is about what they have gained, not what pushes them to learn. A also leaves out relationships.
- B does not fit. The paragraph says they have “a chance to develop trusting relationships.” It never says they team up to pass laws. B also leaves out expertise.
- C fits. It names both benefits: expertise and strong relationships.
- D does not fit. Building their own careers comes from paragraph 4. There, it is a worry about career politicians, not a benefit.
Choose the answer
Watch out: B is tempting because of the words “even across party lines.” But trust is not the same as working together to pass laws. So the answer is C.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer. It picks up the relationships “even across party lines.” But it turns a chance to build trust into teamwork to pass laws, which the paragraph never says. It also drops expertise, the first benefit. C names both things paragraph 5 says long service gives.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
