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
The author of the passage develops the idea that congressional term limits might have negative effects mainly by
- Adescribing the amount of time it takes for new representatives to build connections with experienced representatives.
- Bexplaining why members of Congress need experience in order to govern well.
- Cillustrating the various ways lobbyists seek to influence the decisions of new members of Congress.
- Drevealing the statistics on the turnover rates for representatives.
Show the answer
Correct answer: B
The question asks how the author of the passage mainly develops the idea that congressional term limits might have negative effects.
A. Incorrect. While the author states that “politicians who have served together for extended periods have a chance to develop trusting relationships, even across party lines” (paragraph 5), it is never stated in the passage how long it takes politicians to build connections with one another.
B. CORRECT. In paragraphs 5 and 6, the author discusses the fact that members of Congress who lack experience might fail to develop good political relationships, fail to learn processes, and rely too much on lobbyists. For example, paragraph 6 uses information from the National Conference of State Legislatures Study, which reveals that “term limits may increase the influence of lobbyists.”
C. Incorrect. The author does introduce the idea that new politicians are “ ‘more likely to rely on outsiders, including lobbyists, to replace that expertise’ ” (paragraph 5), but the passage does not present the ways that lobbyists seek to influence the decisions of new representatives.
D. Incorrect. Paragraph 7 does give statistics on turnover rates: “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.” However, this information does not support the idea that term limits might have negative effects.
Question analysis
The author of “Is It Time for Term Limits?” raises the possibility that limiting congressional terms could have negative effects, and this question asks what the author mainly does to develop that idea. Several paragraphs bear on it, with an expert’s warning, a study of state legislatures and statistics on Congress, so students must judge which approach carries the most weight.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Tracing how an author develops one claim is grade 7 work with arguments. The options are short, but the evidence spans several paragraphs of a dense argument, so the demand is typical of a careful grade 7 task.
- Estimated difficulty
- Moderate: several steps, or a close reading with one strong distractor.
- Thinking it demands
- Depth of knowledge 2, skills and concepts · mainly analyze
- What makes it hard
- How, not what moderate
- Evidence in several places minor
- The right answer is reworded minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 11, 70 words.
- Corrected from the DOE handbook
- The name of an organization in the passage and the explanation was corrected.
- 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
The passage’s warning rests on one line of reasoning: newcomers lack the knowledge and relationships that long service builds, so they lean on lobbyists. Lobbyists are the vivid part, which makes a choice about their tactics attractive even though the passage never shows any. The statistics of paragraph 7 also come from the opponents’ side, but they argue that limits are unnecessary, not harmful, and the same paragraph then shows time in office growing.
How, not what moderate Working it out
The stem asks how the author mainly develops the warning, so students must name the reasoning paragraphs 5 and 6 share, that lawmakers without experience govern worse, rather than any one detail along the way. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
Evidence in several places minor Working it out
The case against limits runs from paragraph 5’s expert quotation through paragraph 6’s state study, while the turnover figures of paragraph 7 belong to a different argument, that limits are unnecessary. (Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990; Gorin & Embretson, 2006)
The right answer is reworded minor Choosing the answer
The key’s “experience in order to govern well” paraphrases Reynolds’s “expertise they need to be good at their jobs,” while wrong choices repeat the text’s “lobbyists,” “influence” and “turnover.” (Freedle & Kostin, 1993; Kirsch & Mosenthal, 1990)
Strategy: Find the paragraphs that warn about what term limits could do, sum up in a phrase the reasoning they share, and pick the option that names that reasoning rather than one detail.
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.
- True but not the answer: A choice says something accurate about the text that does not answer this question.
- Reads too much in: A reasonable-sounding conclusion that goes further than the text allows.
The wrong answers, classified
A Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Links “extended periods” in paragraph 5 to a wait newcomers must sit out, but the passage never says how long building connections takes, so the choice invents a measurement.
C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Rightly ties the danger to lobbyists, named in paragraphs 5 and 6, but the passage shows new lawmakers turning to them for expertise, not the various ways lobbyists work on lawmakers.
D True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Recalls that paragraph 7’s turnover figures come from the opponents of limits, but they suggest limits are unnecessary rather than harmful, and the paragraph then shows time in office growing.
What was corrected from the DOE handbook, and why
- Passage and explanation: Paragraph 6 of the passage, and the handbook’s explanation of this question, refer to “the National Conference of State Legislators Study.” The organization is the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), so the site now says “National Conference of State Legislatures” in both places. No answer depends on the name.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how the author mainly builds the idea that term limits could cause harm. Mainly means the main way, not one small detail. So find the paragraphs that warn about term limits. Then name the reasoning they share.
Find the warning paragraphs
Paragraph 5 says “Experienced politicians have a deep knowledge of congressional processes.” Reynolds adds that term-limited members lack “the relevant expertise they need to be good at their jobs.” Paragraph 6 gives a real example. In states with term limits, “The inexperienced state lawmakers began depending on special-interest groups for their expertise on issues.”
Name the shared reasoning
Both paragraphs make the same point. Lawmakers need experience to do the job well. Without it, they lean on outsiders, such as lobbyists. Term limits would mean fewer experienced lawmakers. So the author shows the harm by explaining why experience matters.
Check each choice
- A does not fit. The passage says politicians who serve together for “extended periods” build trust. It never says how long that takes.
- B fits. Paragraphs 5 and 6 explain why lawmakers need experience to govern well.
- C does not fit. Lobbyists come up, but the passage never shows the ways they try to sway lawmakers. It shows new lawmakers turning to them for help.
- D does not fit. The turnover numbers in paragraph 7 come from people who oppose limits. They suggest limits aren’t needed, not that limits would cause harm.
Choose the answer
Watch out: C is tempting because lobbyists are a big part of the danger. But the passage mentions them only as the help new lawmakers turn to. It never describes how lobbyists work. So the answer is B.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
C is the closest wrong answer. Lobbyists do appear in paragraphs 5 and 6. But the passage never lists the ways they try to win lawmakers over. Instead, it explains why lawmakers without experience lean on them. That reasoning, that members need experience to govern well, runs through both paragraphs. That is B.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
