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 quotations in paragraph 3 convey a central idea of the passage by
- Aemphasizing some of the possible effects term limits would have on how Congress functions.
- Bshowing that both politicians and law experts have strong opinions about congressional term limits.
- Csuggesting that citizens defer to career politicians and law experts on issues such as congressional term limits.
- Dimplying that term limits would affect the ways that members of Congress campaign and vote.
Show the answer
Correct answer: A
The question asks how the quotations in paragraph 3 convey a central idea of the passage.
A. CORRECT. The quotations in paragraph 3 from former Senator Joe Lieberman and the writers Olson and Rogowski focus on how term limits might help members of Congress work together more cooperatively, even across party lines, “ ‘and improve the quality of representation.’ ”
B. Incorrect. The fact that politicians and law experts have opinions about term limits is not a central idea of the passage, though those opinions can be used to support arguments for or against term limits.
C. Incorrect. While paragraph 3 begins with the idea that “American citizens are not the only supporters of term limits for Congress,” the quotations do not suggest that citizens tend to agree with expert opinions on term limits; the expert opinions in paragraph 3 are simply offered as further support for term limits.
D. Incorrect. The implication that term limits could “ ‘encourage compromise’ ” by affecting how members of Congress campaign and vote is a supporting detail and not a central idea of the passage.
Question analysis
Paragraph 3 of “Is It Time for Term Limits?” quotes former Senator Joe Lieberman and the authors of an article titled “Legislative Term Limits and Polarization.” This question asks how those quotations convey a central idea of the whole passage, so students must decide what the passage is mainly about and what the two quotations add to it.
- Grade level
- Grade 8 reading and task
- Compared with grade 7
- At grade 7 Linking quotations to a passage’s central idea is standard grade 7 reading. The quotations use political terms such as “partisan” and “polarization,” and the options are abstract, which makes the reading harder without making the reasoning unusual.
- 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
- A very close wrong answer minor
- Hard words minor
- Evidence
- Answered from several paragraphs or stanzas
- Reading level
- Passage: about grade 14, 799 words; question and choices: about grade 10, 72 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 3 opens by saying that citizens are not the only supporters, which invites reading the quotations as a list of who else holds opinions. That is their surface job, and the strongest wrong choice describes it; but the question asks what idea they carry, and both name changes in how Congress would work, less partisan, less rigid, more cooperative. Choices that bring in citizens deferring to experts or members campaigning go beyond anything quoted.
How, not what moderate Working it out
The stem asks how the quotations serve a central idea, not what they say, so students must first name the passage’s concern, how term limits would change the way Congress works, and then see both quotations predicting such changes. (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001)
A very close wrong answer minor Choosing the answer
The campaigning-and-voting choice, like the key, says the quotations point to effects on members of Congress; it narrows them to two activities and adds campaigns, which neither quotation mentions. (Embretson & Wetzel, 1987; Gorin & Embretson, 2006; Ascalon et al., 2007)
Hard words minor Understanding the question
“Partisan,” “polarization,” “proponents” and “legislators” fill the paragraph, and the effects the quotations name, less partisan conflict, more compromise, better representation, have to be decoded before they can be grouped. (Perfetti, 2007; Freedle & Kostin, 1993)
Strategy: Restate each quotation in paragraph 3 in plain words, then ask what both have in common and which option names that shared point as part of the passage’s larger discussion.
Traps
- 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.
- 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.
The wrong answers, classified
B True but not the answer (King et al., 2004; Embretson & Wetzel, 1987)
Follows the paragraph’s opening, “American citizens are not the only supporters,” and notes who is quoted, a senator and two writers, but having opinions is not a central idea of the passage.
C Twists what the text says (King et al., 2004)
Turns the opening’s point that others besides citizens support limits into citizens deferring to experts, though nothing in the paragraph shows citizens following anyone’s lead.
D Reads too much in (Graesser, Singer & Trabasso, 1994)
Stretches “encourage compromise and cooperation” into claims about how members campaign and vote, though neither quotation mentions campaigns and voting habits would be one detail at most.
Working it out, step by step
Figure out what the question asks
This asks how the quotations in paragraph 3 support a central idea, a main point of the whole passage. So first name the passage’s main point. Then see what the quotations add to it.
Name the passage’s central idea
The passage asks whether Congress should have term limits. It weighs what limits would do to the way Congress works. Paragraphs 2–4 give reasons for them. Paragraphs 5–7 give reasons against. So a central idea is the possible effects of term limits on Congress.
Read the two quotations
Lieberman says Congress “might be healthier and less partisan and less rigid if it turned over more often.” Partisan means sticking to one party. Olson and Rogowski report that supporters say limits “would reduce the level of partisan conflict, encourage compromise and cooperation, and improve the quality of representation.” Compromise means each side gives a little to reach a deal.
Find what they share
Both quotations predict changes in how Congress would work: less fighting between parties, more working together, and better service to voters. These are effects of term limits. So the quotations add to the central idea by naming some of those effects.
Check each choice
- A fits. The quotations name possible effects on how Congress functions, or works.
- B does not fit. The paragraph does quote a senator and two writers. But the passage is about what limits would do, not about who has opinions.
- C does not fit. To defer means to go along with someone else’s view. Nothing says citizens follow politicians or experts.
- D does not fit. Neither quotation mentions campaigns, the work of running for office. Voting would be one small detail at most.
Choose the answer
Watch out: B is tempting because paragraph 3 opens with “American citizens are not the only supporters.” But that sentence only leads into the quotations. What they say matters more than who says them. So the answer is A.
Why this answer and not the closest wrong one
B is the closest wrong answer. It is true that a senator and two writers speak in paragraph 3. But having opinions is not a main point of the passage. The quotations matter for what they predict: less partisan conflict, more compromise and better representation. A names those effects on how Congress works.
More questions like this
The original DOE question
The passage “Is It Time for Term Limits?” as printed (pages 90–91)
